Public Bill Committee

(Afternoon)

[Mr. Edward O'Hara in the Chair]

Yvette Cooper: On a point of order, Mr. O’Hara. I want simply to put on the record an apology to Committee members. On Second Reading, we undertook to publish a draft order on the Mayor’s planning powers in time for us to be able to discuss it in Committee when we reached the relevant clause of the Bill. We published the draft order on Tuesday and made it available to the Chairs of the Committee, but unfortunately, due to confusion, it was not circulated to members of the Committee, although it should have been. I want to apologise to members of the Committee for that.
We did today, as soon as we became aware that Committee members had not received the draft order, circulate copies of the draft order. If any Committee members do not have a copy of it, they should please contact me and I will ensure that they receive a copy as speedily as possible, as we had wanted to ensure that Committee members had copies in time for the deadline for tabling amendments to the relevant provision of the Bill, which is the end of today.
I thank both Opposition parties, which I know have had discussions through the usual channels about the matter, for their understanding and for accommodating us.

Michael Gove: It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship again, Mr. O’Hara. May I put on the record my thanks to the Minister for the gracious way in which she has acknowledged that this situation has arisen? Opposition Members completely understand that there was no intention to mislead or to impede the flow of the Committee’s proceedings—we know that this is just one of those things.
 More broadly, and depending, obviously, on progress in Committee, we will have an opportunity to discuss all the planning clauses, I hope, next week. During that time, there will be an opportunity to debate the order. There are amendments standing in our name that would delete specific clauses. If for any reason our amendments are not accepted by the Government, we recognise that there may be an opportunity to propose more specific amendments on Report with the aim of amending the order once those clauses stand part of the Bill. I hope that that will be acceptable. If for any reason it is not, perhaps I could be given guidance to that effect.

Tom Brake: I, too, thank the Minister and her team for the efforts that were made to explain what had happened. I now have on file the Minister’s mobile phone number, but I will not seek to abuse it.

Edward O'Hara: All those expressions of mutual good will bode well for the further progress of the Committee. I thank Committee members for that.

Clause 18

Membership of Transport for London: eligibility of holders of political office

Question proposed [this day], That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Question again proposed.

Edward O'Hara: I remind the Committee that with this we are taking new clause 10—Membership of Transport for London—
‘(1) Schedule 10 to the GLA Act 1999 (Transport for London) is amended as follows.
(2) Leave out paragraph 2 and insert—
“2 (1) Transport for London shall consist of 15 members of whom—
(a) eight (“the Assembly representatives”) shall be the Assembly members appointed by the Mayor; and
(b) the remainder (“the borough representatives”) shall be members of the London borough councils appointed by the Mayor on the nomination of the London borough councils acting jointly.
(2) The Mayor shall exercise his power to appoint members under sub-paragraph (1)(a) above so as to ensure that, so far as practicable, the members for whose appointment he is responsible reflect the balance of parties for the time being prevailing among the members of the Assembly.
(3) The London borough councils shall exercise their power to nominate members under sub-paragraph (1)(b) above so as to ensure that, so far as practicable, the members for whose nomination they are responsible reflect the balance of parties for the time being prevailing among the members of those councils taken as a whole.
(4) It shall be the duty of the London borough councils to nominate the first members under sub-paragraph (1)(b) above in sufficient time before the reconstitution day so that the appointment of those members takes effect on that day.
(5) The Secretary of State may by order vary any of the numbers for the time being specified in sub-paragraph (1) above, but the number of the Assembly representatives must exceed by one the number of the borough representatives.
(6) Before making an order under sub-paragraph (5) above, the Secretary of State shall consult—
(a) the Mayor;
(b) the Assembly;
(c) Transport for London; and
(d) every London borough council.”.’.

Bob Neill: I had given way to the Minister.

Jim Fitzpatrick: It is good to see you back in the Chair this afternoon, Mr. O’Hara. Before the Committee was adjourned, the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst was kind enough to allow me the opportunity to intervene on him. I had only one word left to utter, but it would be unfair on him just to say “satisfy” and then sit down. The substantive question that I was asking was whether he would like to take on board the valid point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Acton and Shepherd’s Bush that no consultation, no matter how thorough, will ever be able to satisfy 100 per cent. of respondents.

Bob Neill: Welcome back to the Committee, Mr. O’Hara. I understand, of course, that no system will be perfect. We are not asking for that, but what I am saying and what is, I fear, overwhelmingly the experience of members of the London assembly is that there is a systemic failure in Transport for London, which stems from the culture of the organisation. I regret to have to say that. There are individual officers who are excellent and I have had good experiences, but there has been such a number of unsatisfactory experiences that I have a real concern about the culture of the organisation. That brings me back to my point that that is based on one that has some advantages in terms of driving forward a business plan—I accept that—but does not have the advantage that comes from those who serve on the London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority, as a classic example, and increasingly in the Metropolitan Police Authority as well. I am referring to the need to interact with elected representatives and their constituents. That is where the failure is and where the culture, accountability and transparency would be improved by going down to the LFEPA model.
I had nearly finished my comments this morning. I was just making the point that there is an issue about Transport for London’s failure to consult on network roadworks, which affect the public, but that there is a broader problem, too.
I regret that there are many instances of similar failures on borough roads. For example, as I was saying in this morning’s sitting, TFL disburses money to the boroughs to carry out local schemes. There is no problem with that; but there is often a feeling among the boroughs that the funding terms and conditions, which are frequently controversial at borough level, present them with a fait accompli.
Works as straightforward as road widening or the installation of a pelican crossing should ordinarily be dealt with without the need for the Member of Parliament or the assembly member to rectify communication problems. They should be dealt with by a local ward councillor taking up a constituent’s concern with the appropriate officers and sorting it out. Repeatedly, and repeatedly is the problem, that does not happen. When a matter is resolved, it seems to be dependent on the good will of individual officers, some of whom come from borough backgrounds, rather than on a TFL system that inculcates into the body the need to consult and to take on board the views of elected representatives.
I regret that there is a feeling among TFL management that they are answerable solely to the Mayor, and that if they are driving forward the Mayor’s policy, everything else is subordinate. That is not a satisfactory way of doing business or of delivering those works, and that is the major failure. The funding is important to London boroughs, but although they can negotiate individually with TFL, at management level they have no collective voice on the policies that underpin the terms and conditions of their funding. They should have a voice, and the LFEPA model would enable it.
That is the thrust of my point. Many of us have many other examples: from major schemes to the siting of bus stops, many of us have postbags full of consultation problems that could be solved if there were a different ethos in the organisation. The new clause would not only produce that ethos, but enable London transport policy to move forward on the basis of a much more effective partnership between the Mayor and the boroughs. Both must deliver transport policy in London, and the structure of LFEPA would enshrine that partnership more effectively.

Michael Fabricant: I did not originally intend to take part in this debate, or indeed in any debate on the Bill, representing as I do a Staffordshire constituency, and never ever having been a councillor; so I assure the Committee that there will be no discussion, as there was this morning, about the No. 433 bus route or potholes in Brent.

Siobhain McDonagh: I want to clarify that point: it is the No. 463 bus route.

Michael Fabricant: I withdraw my earlier statement. It is the No. 463 bus route, which only goes to show that sometimes there is an advantage in taking the broader perspective from Staffordshire.
I shall make just two points, which will not be about the detail of the new clause. Some hon. Members know about my interest in broadcasting and my service on the Select Committee on National Heritage and, later, the Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport. We constantly thought that the BBC required protection when criticisms were made of it. There is a direct relationship with the new clause, which I shall explain later. The BBC needed protection because until recently it had been its own judge and jury. I felt, as did the former excellent Chairman of the Culture, Media and Sport Committee, the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Sir Gerald Kaufman), that an external body should protect the director-general, the chairman and the board of governors of the BBC from criticism when they defended criticisms made against the BBC because it should not be seen to be its own judge and jury.
I shall relate an example to the clause. I do not know whether you have been in the back of a London taxi recently, Mr. O’Hara, but whenever I have been in that position I have heard nothing but complaints about provisions, congestion charges and other issues directed at the Mayor. They all say that it was Ken Livingstone wot done it and that if he were in the back of their cab, they would have something to say to him.

Stephen Pound: String him up.

Michael Fabricant: Indeed. On one occasion at least I have heard that said by a London taxi driver.
If new clause 10 were adopted, it would offer protection for the Mayor of London whoever he or she may be. It would clearly provide an open, democratic and easily visual system whereby decisions could be made about London—including on the congestion charge and Routemaster buses, which we discussed this morning—that would be isolated and separated from the Mayor. For that reason alone, new clause 10 is worth having.
The second point that I want to put on the record is that, whatever we might think of congestion charging and whether it works—this morning, it certainly did not work because there was gridlock around Westminster—the organisation in Coventry that is employed to operate congestion charging for London is superb. I have just bought a new car. Before I am accused of being a profligate Tory, I must say that it was the first time in 11 or 12 years that I had done so. I have had to change the number plate. There have been all sorts of complications because of a cherished number plate which I must say, before the hon. Member for Ealing, North says something, was not FAB 1. For those who remember her, that was the number plate of Lady Penelope. I am not Lady Penelope nor do I have a pink Rolls-Royce, but my point is that the company has handled congestion charging very well indeed. [Interruption.]

Edward O'Hara: Order. I think that the hon. Gentleman is making a serious point.

Michael Fabricant: My serious point is that, although the operation of congestion charging may or may not be admirable, the way in which it is operated in Coventry in respect of individuals is very efficient. I felt that that should be put on the record.
My main argument is that without new clause 10 not only will there be a lack of glasnost—I speak as someone who worked a lot in the Soviet Union in the ’80s and early ’90s—but there will be no protection for the current Mayor of London or future Mayors from the many people, including cab drivers, who would perhaps sometimes unreasonably like to string him or her up.

Stephen Pound: The late Neville Chamberlain was always accused of looking at life through the wrong end of a municipal drainpipe. The hon. Gentleman is clearly looking at life from the perspective of the back seat of a cab. I assure him that there has been only one time in London’s history when cab drivers have been united in their support of any political figure—and that was Ken Livingstone in his early years when he allowed night pricing. Congestion charging was also supported by the cab trade, but I appeal to the hon. Gentleman not always to listen to all cab drivers. They speak sense and with great wisdom most of the time but, by and large, opposition runs deep in their veins. Such opposition is very often not directed at an individual, but is a matter of principle.

Michael Fabricant: I would be ruled out of order if I were to talk about the merits of black cab and hackney drivers, although they provide a unique service in London, which is the envy of the world. Anyone who has travelled in Washington DC will know precisely what I mean, because it is virtually impossible to work out the cost of getting from A to B. We think that the hon. Gentleman was referring to Joseph Chamberlain rather than Neville Chamberlain, but I nevertheless take the point that he makes. I was going to sit down before that helpful intervention. I hope that I have made my position clear, taking a distant view from Staffordshire.

Jim Fitzpatrick: Clause 18 removes the prohibition of the appointment of political representatives as members of TFL. It is important that the Mayor is able to nominate to the board the best candidates to represent the interests of those living and travelling in London, which the clause ensures by providing the Mayor with the opportunity to nominate appropriate political representatives, including borough and assembly representatives. The Department for Transport has separately consulted on whether to give the Mayor greater influence over rail services beyond the GLA boundary. There is a provision in the Railways Act 2005 to ensure that, if that is taken forward, the Mayor will appoint to the board at least two additional members, who may be political representatives for areas outside London, to represent the interests of rail users from their areas. An announcement is expected on that shortly.
New clause 10, which was tabled by the hon. Member for Surrey Heath, seeks to provide a different model of membership for the TFL board. It would prescribe that membership was limited to assembly members and borough nominations, which would not strike the balance that he mentioned during his contribution today. The clause would also exclude the Mayor from the board and from its chair. We strongly resist that change. The restrictions could affect the delivery of the decent transport system that London requires. For that reason, I urge the hon. Gentleman not to press the new clause.

Greg Hands: Will the Minister outline why he does not have any objections to the structure for the LFEPA board?

Jim Fitzpatrick: As I mentioned in an earlier intervention, the different functional bodies are providing different services for London. They have different responsibilities and are working to different programmes. Their controlling organisations and structures accurately reflect the jobs that they are supposed to do. TFL is a board that delivers transport services; there should be an opportunity to appoint political representatives, and also to appoint a mix of people to the board.
It is important that the Mayor is able to nominate the best candidates to represent the interests of those living and travelling in London. Clause 18 ensures that that will happen by providing the Mayor with the opportunity to nominate political representatives. That would allow the Mayor to nominate assembly members or members of local authorities.

Michael Gove: I am disappointed that the Minister has chosen not to accept the logic of the new clause, particularly after the eloquent contributions from my hon. Friends.
 In proposing the clause, we sought to make the case that Transport for London should have a broader level of representation because of the vital functions that it discharges. The Minister has made clear why he opposes that and we have had ample opportunity to canvass our reasoning. I can only register my disappointment that the Minister has not accepted the logic. During the debate, however, I detected some sympathy for our arguments, not least from the hon. Member for Ealing, Acton and Shepherd's Bush, which I hope will be reflected in any Division that we have.

Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 10, Noes 6.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Clause 18 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 19 to 21 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 22

The health inequalities strategy

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Siobhain McDonagh: I welcome the clause, which allows the Mayor responsibility to look at health inequalities across London. I fear that the way in which the NHS is currently organised is deficient in taking into account all areas within London and in appreciating the effect that something done in one primary care trust might have on a hospital in another.
I am saddened and disappointed that the powers given in the clause are not larger. I should be grateful if the Minister would consider whether in future the Mayor might also have the right to be consulted on any hospital reconfiguration project that occurs in the London area. Areas of health inequality within a primary care trust—generally a combination of five or six constituencies—can often be quite small, and the people who live there are often not represented on any health boards, be they those of the primary care trusts or of the hospitals. They need a voice and need to be listened to; the Mayor can provide that function, as he can for any plan to close a hospital in the London area, which has an immediate impact on neighbouring hospitals.
In my own area, consideration is being given to whether a critical care hospital should be placed on the current St. Helier site—which I stress is not in my constituency, but in that of the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington, but serves half of my constituency. The possible movement of that hospital, even only a few miles away, will have a drastic impact on the ability of St. George’s in Tooting, the Mayday in Croydon and Kingston hospital to function.

Martin Linton: Does my hon. Friend agree that while the NHS is superbly equipped to carry out its job of providing health for the population, the structure has a democratic deficit? That is, the NHS is not so well equipped to carry out large reconfigurations that involve public consultation and taking account of the strong feelings that there might be in an area. Giving the Mayor an automatic right to be consulted on such cases would introduce a much-needed sense of political representation and accountability into a system that was never really designed so. My hon. Friend and I share a local hospital trust, which, while very good, does not have much experience of carrying out such large consultations.

Siobhain McDonagh: I wholeheartedly agree with my hon. Friend. Unlike what appears to be the direction of travel of the Front Benches of the Government and the Opposition, I believe that there is need for a greater democratisation of the health service, not less. If people democratically had responsibility for the health service, our hospitals would not sometimes be dirty, but always clean, because that would determine the life of the elected officials or politicians and whether they were going to be re-elected or not. I appreciate that that is a radical view for this particular matter, but I believe that the clause is a step in the right direction. I urge my Government to consider allowing the Mayor to have responsibility for considering all hospital reconfigurations, because of London’s densely populated nature and the huge impact that a decision made miles away can have on everyone’s health service.

Tom Brake: I should perhaps have begun my earlier remarks by apologising for not being here earlier because I had to attend a private event in my constituency.
I support the clause, but I also support what the hon. Lady has just said. It is clear that a health inequalities strategy devised by the Mayor has every prospect of being totally derailed by decisions taken on hospital reconfigurations. Had her amendment been selected, I would have spoken in favour of it too. She referred to our local hospital—St. Helier—which is located in an area of great health need. There is a prospect that it might go in the hospital reconfiguration, and if that were to happen, the impact on any health inequalities strategy drawn up by the Mayor would be huge. If he is not involved in consultations, his health inequalities strategy becomes almost meaningless.
The hon. Lady might say that we could take this even further, because the consultation could be extended to local authorities. However, that is outside the remit of the Bill and of this debate. I support the clause, but the Mayor should be given greater powers to be involved with the key decisions so as to provide a first step in terms of democratic accountability in an area of major service provision that is singularly lacking in it.

Andrew Pelling: It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship once again, Mr. O’Hara. I support the comments made by the hon. Members for Mitcham and Morden, for Battersea and for Carshalton and Wallington, because this Bill was an opportunity to go further in terms of the responsibility of London’s governance. That is not to deny the excellence of the clauses that we are discussing. I know that there is a variation in life expectancy of more than 10 years between one part of my borough of Croydon and another. That loss for the people whom we represent is an important consideration and should be an important consideration for London’s governance.
It is important for the Committee to know that Conservative Members would go further than the proposals suggested so far; we should have confidence in London’s governance, and NHS London should be run by the Mayor and the Greater London authority. There has been a tremendous amount of change in the strategic health authority organisation in London. It was a confusing process in terms of having a sub-regional structure. Given the move to NHS London, it would have made a great deal of sense for that power to have gone to London’s governance as part of the process.
I accept that the Government must have told the Mayor that there was no way that he was going to get his hands on NHS London, but there has been a great deal of talk about accountability. Even Members of Parliament have frustrations in understanding the opaqueness in the governance of our health services in London. One of the great benefits of the reintroduction of London’s governance is the ability to quiz the Mayor for two and a half hours every month. There could be an opportunity for London’s representatives to ask questions, through the London assembly, on important issues such as St. Helier hospital, which was raised by the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden, although the hospital is located in the constituency of the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington. Perhaps the democratic process represented by many thousands of people marching to save that hospital would have found its way of being communicated through London’s governance much more effectively had NHS London been within the London power structure.
It seems odd to propose so many responsibilities for the Mayor to drive forward the health inequalities strategy, but in previous clauses to provide for health advisers to address it through a separate process run by NHS London, which would denude the Mayor of the power to improve London’s health. I am sure that much of the local governance legislation that passed through this House over 120 years ago concerned public health. It was seen to be important then that city leaders involved themselves in that matter, and we too should have confidence in them.

Michael Gove: I thank the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden for her contribution. I thank also my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, Central and the hon. Members for Battersea and for Carshalton and Wallington for the valid points that they made. We support the clause, and as my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, Central pointed out, accept and endorse the argument that there is a lack of effective public scrutiny and oversight of the reconfiguration of hospital and other NHS facilities. As the hon. Member for Battersea pointed out, there is a democratic deficit, which has been exposed by the way in which Members of the Government have felt the need to take to the streets and join picket lines in order to emphasise their unhappiness with the NHS’s central direction. That is an unprecedented situation—Government Ministers joining the public to protest the Government’s own policy.

Siobhain McDonagh: On that point, I feel the need to rise in support of the Minister without Portfolio, my right hon. Friend the Member for Salford (Hazel Blears). I believe that she was doing her job as a constituency MP, as is her right. The Government set policy and local decisions are made locally. I do not feel that there is enough democracy in decisions made at ground level and so applaud my right hon. Friend’s support of her constituents.

Michael Gove: I am glad to put it on the record that we support entirely the Minister without Portfolio, who is simply following in the footsteps of those of us campaigning against Gordon Brown’s NHS cuts. A campaign was launched at the Conservative party conference and has been followed up by work in the media and particularly on the ground. Rallies have been organised up and down the country to protest NHS cuts. The Conservative party has taken a lead in that and I am delighted that the chairman of the Labour party has joined one of our initiatives.

Stephen Pound: I realise that I might be trespassing on your patience, Mr. O’Hara, but I think that the hon. Gentleman’s point must be addressed for the record. I appreciate that it is not immediately germane to the matter under discussion, but my right hon. Friend the Minister without Portfolio was actually protesting the position of Hope hospital, not the Manchester reconfiguration plan. As I am sure the hon. Gentleman is aware, her constituency is between the areas served by the Royal Bolton hospital and St. Mary’s hospital. She was protesting the particular issue relating to Salford Hope hospital and not condemning either the Manchester reconfiguration plan or the Government’s policy.

Edward O'Hara: Order. I think that the relevance of the point has been established. May we return to Mr. Gove?

Michael Gove: I am grateful for that clarification, but broadly, the Minister Without Portfolio was objecting to the way in which the NHS, operating under the constraints placed on it by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, is unfortunately having to make decisions that do not satisfy the public. That lay behind the point made by the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden.

Edward O'Hara: Order. I think that we should return to the matters under debate.

Michael Gove: On the attempted amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden, which sadly has not been selected for debate in Committee, I invite her, if the opportunity exists, to resubmit it on Report. I think that we could have a very interesting debate and perhaps other Members, not just those representing London constituencies, who want a more democratic structure in the NHS, could contribute. I would invite her also to speak in that debate. It would be interesting to see which members of the Labour party take that view because, as she rightly pointed out, the Treasury and the Chancellor seem to think that were the latter to have full control of the NHS, such decisions would be made even further from individuals with the creation of an independent structure that insulates NHS decisions from political influence.
As I suspect most of us know, the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden is also the Parliamentary Private Secretary to the Home Secretary. I do not want to intrude into internal Labour party matters, but if there were a Reid-Brown split on the NHS, with the Reidites on the side of greater democracy and the Brownites on the side of greater centralisation, I would love to hear the hon. Lady’s contribution to that debate, as well as that of the Minister for Housing and Planning.

Siobhain McDonagh: As a clarification, I am speaking completely on my own behalf and not on anybody else’s.

Michael Gove: It is an interesting reinterpretation of the doctrine of collective responsibility, but whenever the hon. Lady speaks, we all pay close attention. I believe that the Conservative party sympathises with the substance of her comments and the principle behind her speech and amendment.

Jim Fitzpatrick: In respect of the public’s view on our unprecedented expenditure on health in the past decade—compared with £21 billion in prospective tax cuts in the Conservatives’ report last October—they will have an opportunity to express it in due course.
The clause will require the Mayor to prepare and publish a statutory health inequalities strategy containing proposals for promoting a reduction in health inequalities. The strategy will identify the role of any relevant strategic body in implementing it. The clause defines “health inequalities” as
“inequalities in respect of life expectancy or general state of health”
as a result of
“general health determinants”.
General health determinants include housing, transport services, employment prospects, ease or difficulty of access to public services and lifestyle or behaviour aspects. Genetic or biological factors are excluded. Although the Mayor is not responsible for health policy or health services delivery, he is responsible for some of the major health determinants outside the NHS’s responsibility.
The new powers that the Bill will bestow on the Mayor could impact on health and health inequalities. The Mayor must collaborate and co-operate with the health adviser in preparing or revising the health inequalities strategy and have regard to any guidance given by the Secretary of State. The Mayor must also consult relevant bodies likely to be affected by the strategy. The Mayor’s new powers are in line with his strategic role and are concerned primarily with the general health determinants that he influences or for which he is responsible. The NHS is the national health service accountable to Parliament, and the delivery of health services will remain its responsibility. The Mayor will meet regularly with the health adviser as well as the chief executive of the London strategic health authority, which will provide an opportunity for regular discussions on major health issues of strategic importance to London.
A mechanism for consulting the Mayor has been established in a memorandum of understanding between him and NHS London, and the Secretary of State has set the national policy framework within which the NHS must operate. Any future reconfiguration in London will also have to comply with the principles outlined in NHS London’s plan, “Health Care for London: A Framework for Action”. The Mayor and his health advisers are working together to ensure that the London framework and the Mayor’s health inequalities strategy are developed in tandem and are consistent and complementary.
I know that that does not answer many of hon. Members’ comments, but I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden for raising the issue. It has been an important exchange, and I know that people would like the Bill to go further, but for the moment I urge that the clause stand part of the Bill.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 22 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 23 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 24

The general power of the Authority: duty to have regard

Michael Gove: I beg to move amendment No. 15, in page 26, line 7, at end insert—
‘(3A) After subsection (5) insert—
“(5A) Any strategy or revision to any strategy to which this section applies shall subject to the approval of the Assembly.”.’.
 As is clear from our debate earlier, there is substantial consensus among Committee members that the Mayor should enjoy powers to address health inequality. It is important to ensure that such powers are exercised as effectively as possible. The amendment would ensure that the democratic deficit alluded to by the hon. Member for Battersea is addressed even more comprehensively. It would ensure that, although the Mayor has the power to develop a strategy, the assembly will have the power to amend it. On the principle that two heads are better than one, 26 are surely better than one.
When we talk about inequality with regard to the NHS, some people might be tempted to ask whether that is the most important factor. Would reducing inequalities in the NHS mean aiming at one target rather than concentrating on others? Dealing with inequalities in health outcomes is a vital measure of how successful the NHS is.
My hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells (Greg Clark) recently attracted a degree of controversy by mentioning that, on poverty, Polly Toynbee might have a better way with a metaphor than Winston Churchill. He was correct, because Polly Toynbee’s metaphor of the caravan moving through the desert applies to the NHS as powerfully as it does to any other collective organisation seeking to deal with inequalities in our society. Her arresting metaphor was intended to demonstrate or underline that it is important that, as a society makes progress, it does so in such a way that the gap between those at the top and those at the bottom does not become too great, because if it does there are problems.
In the past, some Conservatives have argued, when asked about their commitment to social justice, that all that matters is that a rising tide lifts all boats and the difference between people does not or need not matter so much. This Committee sitting gives me the opportunity to stress something that I am anxious to get across, which is that we Conservatives believe that poverty can be measured in both relative and absolute terms and that, on the NHS and its founding principles, the way in which the NHS provides a guarantee of a base level of treatment to all, regardless of income, is a vital way of ensuring social cohesion and social justice. In that respect, the Mayor’s health strategy is right, since he has a specific responsibility to address inequality.
As I said, the hon. Members for Battersea and for Mitcham and Morden talked about the need to give people a voice in shaping the future of the NHS. Our amendment would give those who serve on the GLA an opportunity to influence the Mayor’s strategy. I suspect that the Mayor himself would welcome this change. It is certainly a change that the assembly seeks.

Stephen Pound: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will correct me if I am wrong, but I thought that, when the assembly considered this matter on 6 December 2006, it voted against that and said that it did not want this additional power. That was a minuted meeting of a full assembly.

Michael Gove: I understand from my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, Central, who serves on the assembly, that there is an appetite among assembly members for the chance to influence the strategy. Extending this power to the assembly would be in its interest. Politicians occasionally feel that they are overburdened, but I cannot imagine that any part of policy is more important than the future of the NHS and I cannot imagine anyone who is better fitted to influence the Mayor when it comes to adopting this strategy than my hon. Friends the Members for Bromley and Chislehurst and for Croydon, Central. In fact, both my hon. Friends have mentioned that the need for a greater degree of public involvement in shaping health strategies lies behind an amendment that they have tabled on a different part of the Bill. The power to shape or influence that strategy would be useful because of the scale of the health challenges faced by Londoners. London has specific problems that would be best addressed by the collective endeavour of all those involved in the assembly, as well as the Mayor.
When the Labour party rewrote clause IV of its manifesto, the authors of the rewritten clause IV said that we achieve more by collective endeavour than on our own. It is in that spirit that this amendment is tabled.

Martin Linton: Do I take it that we can welcome the hon. Member for Surrey Heath not only to Toynbeeism, but to socialism?

Stephen Pound: Actually, we’re full. There is a waiting list.

Michael Gove: There probably is a waiting list for membership of the Ealing, North Labour party, but I suspect that the Battersea Labour party has its doors wide open to welcome anyone. I merely wish to point out that the logic of the Labour party’s constitution would suggest that members, whether they are serving on the GLA or this Committee, might look favourably on this amendment.
I said that it is through common endeavour that we can come up with better solutions. The scale of the challenges facing NHS London is significant. London has the highest level of sexually transmitted infection and the fastest growth in HIV infection of any region in the United Kingdom. That raises specific health challenges and those are concentrated not exclusively but disproportionately in particular geographical and socio-economic sets of the population. Having the wider spread of voices that the GLA can provide to help the Mayor shape his strategy will ensure that that concern is addressed.
There is another growing concern, which all of us who are concerned about the health of Londoners have to address too, and that is the growth in respiratory infections. Tuberculosis, which many of us would have suspected was a disease that our grandparents knew but had been banished from our lifetimes, has returned. It is inevitably associated both with overcrowding and with migratory flows and is concentrated in the east end of London.
The Mayor has taken an interest in the health and welfare of the citizens of the east end of London but it would be entirely appropriate if those who represent that area in the GLA—and others who take an interest in health—were also able to bring their expertise to bear when it came to shaping the strategy.
I mentioned migratory flows. One of the reasons for London’s success is that it has been a city that is in every respect open for business. It has been a uniquely welcoming global city for people who have come here and contributed their skills, expertise and knowledge. However, we have to acknowledge that not only have economic benefits been brought, but new health challenges have arisen. The migratory flows have helped the NHS because many of the people who work in it and on whom we rely for care are new British citizens. We welcome that but it would be wrong to omit the fact that along with all the benefits that these changes have brought, there are new challenges. In order to address them effectively, we believe that it would be appropriate to have the range of voices that the GLA can provide to help shape the strategy.

Stephen Pound: I am reluctant to interrupt the hon. Gentleman because—it pains me to say this—he talks a great deal of sense. His point about the changes in the health profile in London is well made. However, in reference to the amendment to which he is speaking, I can tell him that in my borough of Ealing, particularly in the Southall area of the constituency, we do have a problem with tuberculosis and it is addressed by community representation on the primary care trust, on the board and at public meetings and through elected representatives from the council in partnership with the primary care trust. May I try to convince him that where such a problem exists, as it does in my part of my world, we have the democratic avenues to bring that to the attention of the people who provide the cures and the treatments, and that we do not seek the additional power that he is proposing today?

Michael Gove: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his point. I am sure that those dedicated professionals and others who collaborated in the work of the PCT that covers his area and also cover Ealing, Southall have done an exemplary job in addressing these new health challenges.
However the point that I was about to make in summing up is that the NHS has had to endure a series of reorganisations under this Government. It endured a series of reorganisations under the past Conservative Government but let us look particularly at this Government.
That series of reorganisations has seen, for example, the abolition of smaller-scale PCTs and their consolidation into larger PCTs. There might be efficiency gains but there is also inevitably a loss of accountability and closeness to those people who are most affected. One thing that our amendment seeks to do is to reintroduce a degree of accountability into one part of the strategic leadership of the NHS.
One of the consequences of reorganisation within the NHS is that individuals have often had to apply, reapply and then reapply for the same job. My right hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron) at the Conservative Party conference recently pointed out that the individual who is currently director for public health for the south west has been doing the same job since 1997 but has had to reapply for it at least seven times.
The previous clauses in this Bill will ensure that the current director for public health for London becomes the Mayor’s health adviser. I suspect that that individual will carry on doing an admirable job but once again that individual will be forced to jump through another reorganisational hoop.
The consequence of these reorganisations has tended to be—particularly in the past two years—a drift away from local involvement in and local control over the provision of health services. As the scale of the challenges faced by the NHS increases—the funds available to it face additional pressures and it moves away from local people—this simple amendment would allow a re-injection of local voices back into the process of setting health priorities. It is for that reason that this simple amendment should recommend itself to the Minister and indeed to the Mayor.

Tom Brake: The hon. Gentleman is always persuasive, as he was in outlining his arguments for the amendment. However, I have to announce a temporary estrangement with the official Opposition on this subject. Clearly the Government’s position is not to allow wholesale change to the Bill. Our role is to ensure that the scrutiny function is enhanced, as we argued in the case of confirmation hearings. Our role is also to ensure that the basic parameters within which the Mayor and the GLA operate are appropriate—hence the debate that we had over the budget and whether we should or should not agree a budget on a simple majority.
We do not particularly like the existing model of strategic government, which we have sought to modify. Pushing through the amendment and in effect giving the assembly the power of veto over every mayoral strategy destroys the strategic model of government in London that one wants to see and which we support. For the Mayor to operate in a strategic manner would be impossible if each and every one of his strategies had to be approved by a simple majority in the assembly. I will have to part company with the hon. Gentleman on the amendment. If the matter is pressed to a vote, then I may reluctantly join the larger numbers on the other side of the Committee.

Andrew Pelling: The assembly has done good scrutiny work in the area of health—on TB, the immunisation of children, the sexual health of young people, care for HIV sufferers, neonatal care and, rather more controversially in the House, the cessation of smoking. Clearly there is some confusion and controversy. I do not want to regard myself as a messenger from the assembly—I have probably done that far too often—but my understanding is that the assembly supported all the clauses on health and health inequality, but did not divine whether it should be involved in signing off any health inequalities strategy of the Mayor. There has been no positive or negative vote as the hon. Member for Ealing, North suggested.
I am interested in the comment by the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington. He put the role of the assembly into clear relief. Is it there primarily to scrutinise or does it, through its representation, have some role in securing the effort from the Executive within London’s governance in carrying its policies through the assembly on important issues such as health? I would put it to the Committee that, if the London assembly is purely to be a glorified local government scrutiny committee, then expenditure of £11 million per year on such a project surely cannot be justified in terms of value for the public purse.

Martin Linton: In a genuine spirit of inquiry, I wondered whether the hon. Gentleman agreed with the right hon. Member for Witney, who said in his interesting pamphlet on the permissive state:
“We are...committed not only to keeping the Mayoralty but to enhancing the powers of the office.”
If the hon. Gentleman agrees, could he explain how he squares that with supporting an amendment that would give the assembly a veto over any health strategy put forward by the Mayor?

Andrew Pelling: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s constructive and helpful intervention. It allows me to place on the record the fact that Conservative Members are firmly in favour of devolution of significant powers to London’s governance, not only those under the Bill, but direct powers over the learning and skills council in London, which has been parked into an arm’s length skills commission with a powerless effect. We are in favour of NHS London being within the powers of the Mayor. We would go a great deal further than the Minister.
However, if we are to strengthen the powers of the Mayor, it is important to be robust about the accountability to which he is held by the assembly. It is depressing that in many ways so far in the debate the Government have been dismissive of the role of the assembly as existing purely to consider matters of general interest within London politics. If we are to spend £11 million of public money in such a way, we must ask ourselves whether the process of putting together an assembly for that rather minor role is good value in respect of the expenditure of public money.

Tom Brake: I am just wondering what thought the hon. Gentleman has given to how a stalemate would be resolved if the amendment were adopted and the assembly did not like a particular strategy that the Mayor put forward. How would he resolve such a conflict?

Andrew Pelling: Bearing in mind that the hon. Gentleman must be dreaming of a hung Parliament, stalemates can sometimes be resolved by discussion.

Tom Brake: I dream of much more exciting things.

Andrew Pelling: I thought that the sobriety of the Liberals in Carshalton would not allow such dreaming to take place.
It is within the ability of politicians, whether in London’s governance or elsewhere, to discuss and negotiate. So far the response from the Mayor under that strong mayoral model is that he has been elected, he decides what happens and he can ignore what people say. We are in great danger of creating a structure in which the mayoral model is far too strong. If we are to invest so much money, £11 million a year, taking into account all the salaries—[Interruption.]—one of which I admit that I am taking, we must give the assembly more teeth to hold a Mayor to account.

Jim Fitzpatrick: We do not accept the amendment, notwithstanding the important and serious health issues to which the hon. Member for Surrey Heath referred. The hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington said that we have put forward the principle by which we are addressing the mayoral strategies and the role of the assembly, and sharpening up the role of the assembly to ensure that the Mayor has due regard to the comments that assembly members make in helping to develop strategies during consultation.
The Mayor is responsible for producing eight statutory strategies. The Bill makes provision for a further four. The assembly has an important role in developing those strategies. We have already included provision under clause 2 to sharpen up the assembly’s role in policy development. The clause places an explicit requirement on the Mayor to have regard to the assembly’s comments and those of the functional bodies in response to consultation. It also requires the Mayor to write to the assembly identifying which comments he accepts and, when he does not, the reasons for not accepting its recommendations.
We do not believe that the assembly’s powers should be extended further to allow it to approve the Mayor’s strategies. That would risk blurring the clear lines of accountability for the strategies. It could also provoke the question of what the next steps should be if the assembly does not approve a strategy. We ask that the amendment be withdrawn.

Michael Gove: I am very disappointed that the Minister is not willing to accept the amendment. If anything, I am even more disappointed that the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington feels that he cannot support it. Faced with such overwhelming numerical odds—

Stephen Pound: You will fight on.

Michael Gove: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 25

Membership

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Edward O'Hara: With this it will be convenient to take clauses 26 and 27 stand part.

Michael Gove: I rise to oppose the changes suggested in the clauses. It is important to recognise that of all the functional bodies, the London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority, LFEPA, attracts the least controversy. One reason is that it is one of the most effective—I note that in a previous career, the Minister was the general secretary of the Fire Brigades Union. I suspect that LFEPA attracts so little controversy because of the high regard in which firefighters are held throughout the country, but also because of its effective method of working. The suggested changes would alter that method of working in a way that we believe might open the door to less efficient prosecution of its duties.
 There are three particular areas of suggested change about which we have concerns. The first is the membership of LFEPA. It was originally proposed that the accountable element of LFEPA’s membership should be diluted. At the moment, LFEPA has a balance of borough and assembly representatives who work successfully together. As the Conservatives have pointed out during debate on previous clauses, the model of consensual work that characterises LFEPA’s operation was acknowledged by both the Minister and my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst.
The original plan was to remove two borough and two assembly members. Happily, that has been diluted, and we will now lose one of each, but it still seems wrong to deprive LFEPA of the benefits of its current constitution, because that precise mix ensures, more or less, that every area of London has someone to speak for it, whether an assembly member or a borough representative. There is a risk that certain geographical areas might fall off the end if the change is made. More broadly, if it is made, we will lose the rationale that governs the inclusive nature of LFEPA’s operation. The two individuals lost will be replaced by individuals appointed by the Mayor.
 The rationale for mayoral appointments seems questionable. The point has been made that the two new members should be appointed partly to meet diversity criteria and partly to ensure a better relationship with business, so that business takes more account of the need for fire safety, resilience and emergency planning. In the first case, diversity should rightly be a matter for political parties. All political parties are now addressing the issue, and London is an area in which they have all been successful to a greater or lesser extent in addressing diversity within their own ranks. Therefore, having representatives who are assembly or borough members can meet the diversity criteria more effectively than simple patronage from the Mayor.
Secondly, the idea that we need to appoint someone so that business meets its obligations more effectively seems a complete misunderstanding of how LFEPA should operate. Appointing someone to the board from business, however enlightened, will not necessarily mean that other businesses or institutions operating in the commercial arena will take any more heed of what LFEPA says. It seems to us that it is for LFEPA itself—its members and those who work with it—to make the case for improved planning to deal with fire risk, improve resilience and manage emergency planning. LFEPA already does a good job, but if there is a feeling in the GLA or elsewhere that it needs to raise its game in those respects, the current composition should address that. Attempting to amend the current composition will not address that concern more effectively.
We are particularly concerned about what is proposed in respect of the power of mayoral direction to LFEPA. Because of the consensual way in which LFEPA works, the use of mayoral direction powers suggests that it has been incapable of resolving a problem and that the Mayor comes in to cut the Gordian knot. In such circumstances, there is an implied threat to LFEPA’s accountability. More than that, however, individuals in LFEPA who might wish to operate to an agenda dictated by the Mayor could act as a fifth column, disrupting the currently effective consensual working of LFEPA and hoping that the Mayor’s powers of direction might subsequently be exercised to favour a minority over the existing consensus. It would not be appropriate for the Mayor’s powers to be exercised in such circumstances. That is why we have tabled an amendment, which may be taken as a new clause later, that would give the assembly the power to call in certain mayoral directions. We accept that in rare circumstances a power of mayoral direction might be appropriate.
We acknowledge that mayoral direction has been used, for example, with the London Development Agency or Transport for London in preparing for the Olympics, to instil a sense of common purpose for a project that the majority of Londoners considered vital. We can envisage circumstances—if, for example, there were a terrorist atrocity again—where a power of mayoral direction might be appropriate for LFEPA. After 9/11 in America, the strong mayor model, exemplified by Mayor Giuliani in New York, was effective in dealing with problems consequent on that horrific attack.
We can all conceive of circumstances where a strong Mayor here may need to use a power of mayoral direction with LFEPA to deal with emergencies. In such circumstances, a responsible GLA will not exercise its call-in power, because it would recognise the importance of letting the Mayor and LFEPA get on with the job. However, giving the assembly that call-in power would ensure that the Mayor would exercise it responsibly. Unless the Minister says that it is appropriate to grant the assembly that call-in power, we are chary about extending to the Mayor, willy-nilly, this power of direction.
Our reasons for expressing concerns about the clauses relate to the current composition of LFEPA, the weak reasons being given for the change of membership and our concerns about the potential misuse or inadequate scrutiny of the Mayor’s power of direction in specific circumstances. I would be grateful if the Minister addressed those concerns.

Tom Brake: I support the points made by the hon. Gentleman. The information that I have received about LFEPA suggests that it functions well and has a local government-inspired culture of openness which, according to my contact, contrasts with that of TFL and the LDA. I am told that its budget is one of the most robust, because its local authority input provides a more active degree of scrutiny than might otherwise have applied.
The information that I have received suggests, as the hon. Gentleman said, that this measure may be about trying to ensure that the ethnic minority representation on LFEPA is correct. There may be other, more effective, ways of achieving the degree of balance that the Minister is rightly seeking than simply switching places from local authorities and assembly members to the Mayor. The method being used to achieve that balance is not appropriate. I shall listen carefully to what the Minister says, but he will have to work hard to convince me that I—and the official Opposition—should support these clauses today.

Jim Fitzpatrick: The clause, which amends paragraph 1 of schedule 28 to the Greater London Authority Act 1999, changes the composition of LFEPA and gives it wider powers in the appointment of the authority members. It enables the Mayor to appoint the 17-member board as follows: eight assembly members, currently nine, seven London borough nominees, currently eight, and two further new members appointed by the Mayor on his own nomination who are intended to represent stakeholders who are other than elected politicians. The hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington mentioned the prospect of someone from the black minority ethnic community being nominated, which is an option that would be open to the Mayor.
 The clause also makes consequential amendments to ensure that the Mayor’s appointment of eight assembly members continues to reflect the political balance of the prevailing parties in the assembly. It makes consequential amendments requiring the Mayor to fill any occurring vacancy of mayoral representatives on the authority as soon as reasonably possible.
Clause 26 removes the constraints imposed on a chair or vice-chair of LFEPA who is also an assembly member in respect of receiving allowances for carrying out those roles. This change reflects the initial responsibilities of being chair or vice-chair of the authority. The Government believe that assembly members should not be prohibited from receiving an allowance in respect of those offices.
 Clause 27 inserts new sections 328A and 328B to the 1999 Act. The clause provides power for the Mayor, under new section 328A, to issue directions and guidance to the authority. In issuing any directions and guidance, the Mayor must have regard to the fire and rescue national framework and other fire safety enforcement guidance. That will give the Mayor more influence over delivery while ensuring that the arrangements for LFEPA remain broadly compatible with those for fire and rescue authorities elsewhere.

Tom Brake: If, for instance, clause 27 was passed, giving the Mayor the power of direction, why does the hon. Gentleman believe that it would be necessary for the Mayor to appoint his own people to LFEPA?

Jim Fitzpatrick: It is our view that the LFEPA board should have its membership widened to include those other than local authority representatives. We partly discussed that earlier in respect of the TFL board—whether there should be outside people on it and it should be exclusively local authority or assembly representation.
We believe that it would add to the experience and ability of the LFEPA board to continue with the undoubted success that was mentioned by the hon. Member for Surrey Heath in respect of discharging its duties and which the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst knows better than any of us, having been a senior figure and leader of the authority over many years and well respected within the fire community for the role that he has played. We believe that bringing in other than local authority representatives would assist the board in its ability to discharge its duties. As I was saying, this will give the Mayor more influence over delivery while ensuring that the arrangements for LFEPA remain broadly compatible with those for fire and rescue authorities elsewhere.
 Clause 27 includes a power for the Secretary of State in the new section 328B of the 1999 Act to direct the Mayor to revise or revoke the guidance or directions given to LFEPA that he considers inconsistent with the fire and rescue national framework or fire safety enforcement guidance. The purpose of that reserve power is to ensure that if the guidance or direction issued by the Mayor to LFEPA is inconsistent with that issued by the Secretary of State, the Secretary of State can direct the Mayor to remove their inconsistency. That will ultimately ensure that the guidance or directions issued by the Mayor do not conflict with policy requirements and guidance at a national level. That should remove any difficulty in following through decisions that will derive from risk assessment and will enable the Mayor to direct the authority either on operational or management matters, such as moving towards shared services with other functional bodies, such as the Metropolitan Police Authority in particular.
Finally, the hon. Member for Surrey Heath promoted me above my rank. I was not general secretary of the Fire Brigades Union but a senior lay official in London, which was several ranks below.

Michael Gove: Many of us feel that the Fire Brigades Union would have been in even better hands had the Minister been general secretary, because his judgment in so many matters is exemplary. However, on this occasion, it has let him down.
 I am sorry that the Minister cannot accept the burden of our arguments, but we might table an amendment, perhaps on Report, specifically to see whether call-in powers might be appropriate. I give notice that, due to the Minister’s insistence that the clause stand part intact and unamended, we shall vote against it.

Edward O'Hara: For the sake of clarity, I remind the Committee that, as we have grouped the stand part debates for clauses 25, 26 and 27, the other two clauses will be moved formally once I have put the question on clause 25 stand part. If anyone wants to make further comment on part 5, they should do so now.

Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 8, Noes 6.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Clause 25 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 26 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 27

Directions etc by the Mayor

Motion made, and Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 8, Noes 6.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Clause 27 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 28

The London housing strategy

Michael Gove: I beg to move amendment No. 19, in clause 28, page 29, leave out lines 17 to 44.

Edward O'Hara: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments:
No. 20, in clause 28, page 30, line 24, leave out from beginning to end of line 22 on page 31.
No. 22, in clause 28, page 31, line 31, leave out ‘be in general conformity with’ and insert ‘have regard to’.
No. 21, in clause 28, page 31, leave out lines 41 to 45.

Michael Gove: The amendments relate to the provisions on the Mayor’s housing strategy. Inevitably, disentangling housing policy from planning policy is impossible. That is why they are grouped together in the ministerial portfolio. Inevitably, some of the points made in this debate may stray into territory also to be covered by the debate that I anticipate we will be having immediately afterwards. I hope, Mr. O’Hara, that you will forgive me if there is any straying from housing territory into planning.
It is striking that both we and the Liberal Democrats are anxious to remove the extension of the Mayor’s planning powers, because they will be extended at the boroughs’ expense. It is our united view on this side of the Committee that any growth in the Mayor’s powers should not take place at the boroughs’ expense.
The provisions are more complex in that respect and more open to debate, and we acknowledge that. They imply a devolution of power downwards to the Mayor. We accept that that could be a good thing in many respects, but we have certain concerns, which are embodied in the amendments. We hope that they precipitate a useful discussion and some clarification from the Minister. I hope that they also provide an opportunity for my hon. Friends and other hon. Members to raise their concerns about what is envisaged.
Our amendments would ensure that London’s housing policy was as devolutionary as possible and that that power was exercised at the lowest possible level. The amendments serve two functions: they welcome the idea that the Mayor should develop his own housing strategy and liberate him in one regard more than would the Government. The Bill places a series of constraints on the Mayor in the development of his housing strategy that will allow his hands to be tied by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government. One principle that we believe is important in devolution is that policy innovation should be allowed in different areas of the United Kingdom. We also believe that those responsible for shaping strategies or delivering policy should have the opportunity to do so in a way that conforms with the priorities of those they represent.
One of our concerns about housing policy—not just in London, but nationally—is that national targets and criteria, however well-intentioned their conception, have been applied in blanket fashion, causing housing policy that may have been conceived in a part of the United Kingdom for which it is appropriate to be applied in another part for which it is wholly inappropriate. For that reason, we want to allow the Mayor to become more of a pioneer and less of an agent of central Government in developing his strategy. I hope that those Labour Back Benchers who welcome the idea of giving the Mayor more powers, such as the hon. Members for Ealing, North, for Regent’s Park and Kensington, North and for Battersea, will look warmly on the liberating potential of our amendments.

Martin Linton: I hope that we can include the hon. Gentleman in that category. Does he agree with the right hon. Member for Witney, who said:
“We are...committed not only to keeping the Mayoralty, but to enhancing the powers of the office.”?

Michael Gove: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for once again reminding us of the words of the leader of the Conservative party. I find paying close attention to my right hon. Friend’s speeches both spiritually improving and intellectually refreshing, and I suggest that, as well as repeating that line, the hon. Gentleman pay closer attention to all the speeches made by the leader of the Conservative party.
We agree that the Mayor’s powers should be enhanced, and we have tabled amendments that would enhance them, but as I pointed out on Second Reading, our definition of enhancing the Mayor’s powers does not involve enhancing them at the boroughs’ expense. We always wish to enhance the Mayor’s powers, wherever appropriate, in a way that leaves power to flow from central Government to the Mayor, although in specific exceptions—I might be straying into the debate on waste—some might advocate a devolution of powers from central Government to the Mayor that we consider inappropriate.
Enhancing the Mayor’s powers does not mean granting every one of the Mayor’s wishes; it just means an overall consolidation of greater powers in the Mayor’s hands, particularly when those powers come from central Government. It does not and should not mean acceding to all the Mayor’s wishes, and it certainly should not mean allowing a power grab at the boroughs’ expense.

Martin Linton: Would the hon. Gentleman consider me overly cynical if I suggested that he is in favour of increasing all the powers that the Government do not propose to increase and reducing all the powers that they do?

Michael Gove: Far be it from me to accuse anyone of cynicism, and I say to the hon. Gentleman that there are a number of areas where we are happy for that to happen—many more clauses have been allowed to stand part than have been subject to our challenge. I hope that there will continue to be a measure of consensus about some of the proposals, but our concerns are sharpest in respect of the intimate areas where housing and planning mesh. I want to outline a case for ensuring that power remains at the lowest possible level.
I recognise that the hon. Gentleman, who represents part of Wandsworth as Labour Member, might occasionally feel frustrated when he sees what Conservative housing policy has done, how successful it has been in respect of individuals moving from renting to ownership and how successfully Wandsworth has reclaimed property through its hidden homes initiative to provide homes for those who were homeless. He may occasionally bristle at Wandsworth’s success and think, “If only a Labour Mayor were implementing those policies and taking the credit, I could feel happier.” I empathise with him as he looks on enviously at Wandsworth’s success, but I am afraid that the success of Wandsworth and other Conservative boroughs only emphasises the thrust of what I am saying.

Martin Linton: In referring to “success”, does the hon. Gentleman mean the three or four years when Wandsworth council’s planning committee asked for no affordable housing whatever from any of the developments along the riverside and left it to the local Member of Parliament to ask the Minister for Housing and Planning to intervene, because that was the only way to get any affordable housing through planning gain? Does he support that? Or is he talking about the council’s current policy, under which it has eventually come round to agreeing that some affordable housing would be desirable?

Michael Gove: I support Wandsworth for being hugely successful and exceeding Government targets for housing completions by reaching 168 per cent. of the figure it was asked to achieve. Having visited some of Wandsworth’s social housing, in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency, I can say how satisfied the tenants were with the quality of service that they received. I am sure he is aware that social housing in Wandsworth is in many, although not all, respects run by the council. It would be interesting for Labour Members to consider that some of the most effective housing still in council hands is in the hands of Conservative councils. Once again, that underlines the point that we are trying to make with our amendments, which is that boroughs that successfully deliver on housing should be given a better chance to do so.

Martin Linton: I thank the hon. Gentleman for the opportunity to talk about Wandsworth’s housing policies in a relevant way. One of my many concerns about its policies is that only 7 per cent. of its completions are affordable housing, which is by far the lowest figure for any London borough.

Michael Gove: Wandsworth’s improvement of the social housing stock in its area, through its hidden homes initiative and through investment and renovation, underlines its commitment not just to its existing social tenants, but to other tenants who have been on its housing list and have been housed successfully. The hon. Gentleman should bear it in mind that the social mix in Wandsworth is such that it has been uniquely successful in combining the building of mixed communities and support for vulnerable people who may need—through social housing or private rented accommodation—an alternative to the competitive market.
Wandsworth is a success, and at every election its Tory administration has seen its majority increase, whichever way the wind is blowing nationally. The evidence of my own eyes and that of the ballot box suggests that it is delivering in tune with what its voters want, whether they are social tenants or not.

Martin Linton: I do not think that many of the people waiting for a chance to get affordable housing will agree when they see that houses that currently qualify to be described by Wandsworth council as affordable homes are offered at 90 per cent. equity at a cost of between £300,000 and £400,000. Does the hon. Gentleman consider that affordable?

Michael Gove: The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point, which refers to one of the Government’s semantic problems in defining “affordable housing”. The Government have chosen to use the term “affordable housing” to refer not just to housing for social rent, but to low-cost home ownership schemes, which has meant that any shared-equity or shared-ownership scheme qualifies as affordable housing. I suspect that we both support more low-cost home ownership schemes, as well as improved and enhanced housing for social rent. However, we must recognise that, in London, the cost of some of those schemes can be prohibitive.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned some schemes in Wandsworth where the cost has been significant. I remind him that low-cost home ownership schemes and affordable homes were allegedly built in Hammersmith and Fulham when the hon. Member for Ealing, Acton and Shepherd's Bush was leader of that council that were selling for £750,000. The attempt to make a partisan point against Wandsworth council backfires because Hammersmith and Fulham, like Wandsworth, was caught by the wide semantic net for affordable housing that the Government have created.

Siobhain McDonagh: My constituency of Mitcham and Morden is in the London borough of Merton. We benefit from the fact that property in our area is cheaper—relatively, not absolutely—than in the rest of London, and shared ownership schemes work incredibly well. The problem that I would like the hon. Gentleman to comment on is the fact that my borough, which is a no-overall-control Conservative borough, is taking increasingly oppositional stances towards the introduction of shared ownership schemes, particularly those for new home owners. Is that the right direction to take?

Michael Gove: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for drawing such matters to my attention. I shall pay closer attention than hitherto to the new housing policy for which Merton council is responsible.
In response to the hon. Lady, I wish first to set out an overall point of principle. We are arguing that local councils should set housing policies and that they should be accountable to their electorate for those policies through the ballot box. If the new Conservative-led council is pursuing a housing policy that is out of sympathy or keeping with the needs of the community, it will pay a price at the ballot box in much the same way as the Labour party in Hammersmith and Fulham paid such a heavy price last time round.
As for shared ownership schemes, let us consider the Government’s social homebuy scheme. Conservative Councillor Kim Humphreys in Southwark has been one of the most enthusiastic champions of social homebuy. We know from written answers that the Minister has had painfully to acknowledge in the House that the number of homes sold under social homebuy has increased from one in the summer to a massive five. The homes under social homebuy have often been made available as a direct result of the championing of Conservatives, rather than Labour councillors. The Government’s record in respect of low-cost home ownership is “could do better”, while the Conservative record is “wherever possible, champion it”.
We may hear more about such matters in the debate, but with the Conservative takeover in Hammersmith and Fulham, the emphasis on making low-cost home ownership schemes work better will receive significant impetus. I am sure that members of the Committee would want to note it in their diaries that in February Hammersmith and Fulham will reveal more about its plans to help low-cost home ownership schemes take off in that part of west London.

Andrew Slaughter: It will be better if I comment in some detail, because the hon. Gentleman mentioned me in respect of low-cost home ownership under the previous Labour council. I had to ask two colleagues to repeat what he had said because I did not believe it the first time I was told. The Labour administration in Hammersmith and Fulham built a high percentage of affordable rented housing and some shared-ownership housing. That is different from what the current Conservative administration is doing, which is minimising the housing for those in the most severe need and cynically building only shared-ownership housing that it knows is out reach of most people in housing need.

Michael Gove: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for attempting to justify his record, but for his benefit in particular, and for that of the Committee, I shall repeat what I said. The hon. Member for Battersea said that shared ownership homes in Wandsworth were being marketed at a price that suggested that they were beyond the reach of many of those Londoners whom we would think were the targets for affordable housing. My argument was that Imperial wharf—one of the developments undertaken when Labour ran Hammersmith and Fulham—had flats that were marketed at an even more exorbitant price, yet they still qualified as affordable housing because they were shared-ownership properties.
The point that I was making is that the definition of affordable housing is semantically elastic, which is a consequence of how the Government defined affordable housing in the first place. [Interruption.] The Minister for Housing and Planning says from a sedentary position that that is up to the council, which only reinforces my point that if the hon. Member for Battersea wishes to criticise Wandsworth—he may or he may not—then in the same light, Hammersmith and Fulham, under Labour, is open to the same criticism. However, at this point, I have no desire to revisit the whole question of Imperial wharf, which has been laboured. I suspect that Hammersmith and Fulham residents took a view on Imperial wharf, and indeed on the housing policy pursued by the Labour authority, at the last borough election.
The boroughs—as we know and has been acknowledged in the debate—play a key role in housing delivery. They have a statutory obligation to meet homelessness requirements and to meet decent homes standards, and for that reason they are the principal engines of delivery in housing. Of course, we have moved from a municipal model of delivering social housing to a more plural one through the changes that we have seen—not just council houses moving into private hands, but stock transfer and the growth in the number of socially rented homes that are managed by registered social landlords and housing associations.
Nevertheless, when it comes, for example, to negotiating with the DCLG for money for arm’s length management organisations, deciding how allocation policies are to work within constraints set down by central Government or meeting the decent homes standards, it is the boroughs that deliver. Strikingly, as I said earlier, it is Conservative boroughs that deliver better.
When it comes to housing completions—this is a point that I made on Second Reading—Conservative boroughs perform consistently better. There are exceptions to the rule, such as Greenwich, for unique reasons. However, the Conservative record in delivering high-quality housing, on time and completed in a way that not just satisfies but exceeds Government targets, is pretty impressive.
One other thing that I would say about Conservative boroughs in London—indeed, about all London boroughs—is that there is a broad consensus on the need for more housing overall and for more affordable housing. There is a legitimate argument, and one that I will return to in greater detail, about how the proportion should be managed. However, there is, as well as a consensus between Front Benchers on the importance of increasing housing supply overall, a broad consensus within London.
Looking at the dynamic way that a Conservative borough such as Barnet is attempting to address housing need, one can see some of the most innovative pioneers considering new methods of financing—for example, investigating how a bond might work. It is Conservative councils that are looking at new ways to get the private sector to collaborate with them to provide that housing.
 Our specific concerns about the Government’s amendment relate to how the success of the boroughs, to which I briefly alluded, and their direct responsibility, which everyone acknowledges, could be affected by the Mayor having, in effect, the power of direction over how the London housing pot is spent. We want to know how we can ensure that this or a future Mayor adequately takes account of the diverse needs of all London boroughs and does not pay disproportionate regard to any of his pet projects.
We all know that this Mayor—for example, in how he has sought to target certain councils—has, as it were, a hit list. Referring again to Hammersmith and Fulham, it recently wanted to bring forward a development, which would have increased the housing supply in that area and helped to address the broader housing affordability problems that we face. However, the Mayor directed refusal of that application. Fair enough. We can argue the merits: I think he was wrong, he thinks he was right. What was striking was the way that the Mayor invoked the shade of Shirley Porter. Hammersmith and Fulham was increasing housing supply in its area, which it was elected to do—

Andrew Slaughter: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Michael Gove: I will allow the hon. Gentleman to intervene in a second.
The council was doing something that it was elected to do and that we all recognise as wise, but because the proportion of affordable housing in that development was not exactly right in the Mayor’s terms, he said no, it cannot go ahead. As a result, what happens? The affordability crisis in Hammersmith and Fulham is not addressed and affordable homes, which would have been built, have been delayed. Again, deciding on the merits of the scheme is up to Members here, and indeed the electors of Hammersmith and Fulham.
This Mayor, in the way that he regards housing policy, has shown that his own ideology and taste can influence his thinking. We need to know, when we come to the allocation of money, what safeguards there are to ensure not only that the Mayor will do more than take casual regard of the boroughs, but that he will take specific account of their needs. We need to know what measure of appeal there is. What will happen if the Mayor—for arbitrary, capricious or ideological reasons—decides not to give the boroughs the allocation that they need? How can we be certain that the Mayor will respond to their specific concerns?
There is another point. The provision of new housing in London, including affordable housing, to an extent depends on the planning process. Central Government no longer allocate housing grants to local authorities allowing them to build socially rented homes. Those Morrisonian days, for better or for worse, have gone. What happens now, as most Members will know, is that new housing developments depend on particular developers finding a site, seeking planning permission and then, as part of their obligation, providing a measure of affordable housing.
 One question in my mind is, what happens with a go-ahead council—Conservative, Labour or whatever—that is anxious to see development occurring? Barnet is a case in point. It sees not just successful commercial development, but successful residential development, and, as a proportion of that residential development, wants affordable housing. Therefore, the housing association, which is supposed to manage that affordable housing, will go to the Housing Corporation to ask for money. However, what will happen if the Mayor, in his allocation of the London housing quota, says that north-west London can forget it and that east or south London is his priority? What will happen if the workings of the market, particularly strong leadership from a local borough, lead to an expansion of housing and affordable housing in one part of London, but the Mayor has already allocated the money from the pot elsewhere? Where will the Housing Corporation turn in such circumstances?
Let us say that there is a deserving housing association—again, for example, in Barnet—that is desperate to fulfil the affordable housing requirement there, but it cannot, because of the Mayor’s direction that the cash should go elsewhere. What will happen in those circumstances? Who will exercise Solomon’s judgment?
 One other area that I should mention, as we are talking about affordable housing and as we all accept that its provision is vital for London, is the vexed question of the Mayor’s threshold. As we are all aware, the Mayor has produced a particular threshold to ensure that there is greater provision of social housing. The London plan says that all developments of 15 units or more should include affordable housing. That is a lower threshold than prevails in other parts of the country. We can all think of good reasons why that should be so, but there are, curiously, perverse consequences.
In a recent issue of Inside Housing—8 December 2006—some survey work by London Development Research shows a spike in the number of applications for housing development with fewer than 15 units, then a rapid falling off thereafter. Developers are clearly attempting to get round the Mayor’s affordable housing obligation. Why? They recognise that sometimes that affordable housing obligation can make uneconomic a development that might in other circumstances have been economic.
 My contention is that the precise balance that should be struck to ensure the maximum number of new homes, both affordable and market, depends on the circumstances in each borough. The Government almost half acknowledge that. By acknowledging that there should be a separate threshold in London, distinct from the rest of the United Kingdom, they recognise that the London housing market is different. Why do we not recognise, as is obvious, that the sub-regional market in north-west London is very different from that in east London? The requirements for affordable housing thresholds and percentages might well need to be different in both those areas and could be better managed by the local authorities, which are already working successfully in sub-regional partnerships.
I should mention one other aspect of the affordable housing threshold. As we all know, the Mayor insists, or requests, in the London plan that all new housing developments be 50 per cent. affordable housing. That seems admirable, but we all know that a recent development—the Olympic park—will not have that threshold applied to it.
On building housing for Olympic athletes, the Mayor has said that the developers can only afford 30 per cent. affordable housing. The developer said that it could not go ahead in a cost-effective way unless it accepted that threshold. The Mayor said that that was right and, having looked at the figures, accepted that it was so. Why, if he can accept that in respect of the Olympic area, cannot he accept the same freedom for other boroughs to negotiate in their own way on each development that they encounter? The Mayor acknowledges that the Olympics is a special case, so why cannot we acknowledge that each London borough is best equipped to engage in such negotiations itself?
 We seek a more devolutionary housing policy that recognises Londoners’ specific, diverse housing needs. Although the Conservative party is, broadly, unhappy with power being exercised regionally, London is an exception in so many ways that it is appropriate that the Mayor has the power to set a strategy. Such a strategy could encourage best practice and champion, for example, the creation of innovative new schemes like community land trusts, specify areas where boroughs should work harder to meet their obligations and offer encouragements and inducements to those that work most effectively. However, the Mayor should not confuse his strategic function with that of delivery. The boroughs and associated bodies—primarily RSLs—are responsible for delivering. The responsibility for delivering money is key. The Mayor should not be primarily responsible for allocation of money: the boroughs should do it, by working together and negotiating with the Government through the Secretary of State.

Tom Brake: This is quite difficult for me, because I support some of the amendments in the group and not others. Clearly, amendments Nos. 20 and 21 are about devolution—in other words, stopping the Secretary of State’s interference—which I support. However, amendments Nos. 19 and 22 are different. The official Opposition spokesman stated that it was important that the Mayor had a power to set a strategy. The effect of amendment No. 22 would be that, although he may have such a power, in practice every local authority could disregard the strategy. Is the hon. Gentleman happy with a strategy that could never be delivered? Is that his definition of a strategy?

Andrew Pelling: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the scenario he is complaining about—responsibility for a strategy without power—is similar to one that he recently supported in this Committee: being responsible for health inequalities without being responsible for NHS London?

Tom Brake: In relation to the NHS issue there would have been a greater degree of control over the NHS if the Mayor had been granted the powers to consult that the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden was advancing in her amendment. However, we are talking about a housing strategy and we accept the principle that London needs a strategic government. As part of that process, London will need a housing strategy that can deliver. If amendment No. 22 were agreed, there would be no guarantee that that strategy for housing in London could be delivered.
There comes a point when the official Opposition need to cease the constant repetition of the mantra that we need more homes, if they are not willing and able to say how they will be delivered. If amendment No. 22 were accepted, there would certainly be no prospect that they would be delivered.
The Government could have gone for something stronger in terms of strict conformity, but it is our view that general conformity will leave the boroughs room for flexibility without losing the importance that we acknowledge of achieving London-wide housing figures. I shall give a couple of examples of when that has been the case in respect of the London plan, for example, which has a requirement for general conformity. There was a dispute in Southwark over land classified as urban or suburban, which would have meant different housing densities under the plan. I understand that Southwark fought its case. The Government’s planning inspector ruled in its favour, but also acknowledged that its proposal was within general conformity.
I refer now to Islington. The matter has not been resolved. It concerns annual housing targets. It looked as though an outcome in Islington’s favour would be secured, but the issue is still ongoing. It illustrates the point that there is scope for local authorities to argue within general conformity that their proposals are sound. There have been examples of when the Mayor’s attempts to overrule local authority plans have been rejected by the planning inspector. That is not to say that the Government’s proposals should not be questioned.
The hon. Member for Surrey Heath has posed several such questions, but it is worth repeating them for the record. What mechanisms will exist to ensure that the Mayor’s spending recommendations provide adequately for boroughs’ statutory responsibilities? What is the appeal mechanism? What safeguards will ensure that the Mayor does not direct boroughs how to use the money that is made available to them? We have that argument almost daily with central Government when talking about their relationship with local government. We do not want that repeated and the Mayor directing local authorities about how they should spend resources.
What safeguards are in place to ensure that, when the Mayor drafts the London housing strategy, he considers the statutory duties, national targets and local issues to which boroughs are obliged to respond? Finally, will the Government make it clear whether they consider that the statutory duties of the boroughs to their local communities will be sacrosanct and that they cannot—and will not—be overridden by the Mayor and anything he puts forward for the London housing strategy?
If we come to a vote, I will have a dilemma to resolve quickly about whether my desire to see the Secretary of State interfere less is stronger than my desire for London to enact a housing strategy that can actually deliver the number of affordable housing units that London, in particular, needs.

Stephen Pound: I rise to support the Government’s proposal and to oppose the amendments. I do not do so out of any partisan ideology, but I have considered the Government’s proposals carefully, have read the responses from various agencies and have listened with great interest to the points made by Opposition Members. I will confine myself more to the statements made by the hon. Member for Surrey Heath than those of the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington. I shall do so not out of disrespect for the latter, but I cannot help but think that, as the hon. Member for Croydon, Central intervenes on the hon. Gentleman, a certain frisson might arise from the current edition of The House Magazine, in which the hon. Member for Croydon, Central describes himself as visiting “Mrs Thoroughgood’s banana stall” in Croydon—we dream of banana stalls in Ealing—and then wrote about attending a public meeting at which he was mistaken for the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington. In fact, the hon. Member for Croydon, Central was called “Mr. Tom”. Having been confused with the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, North (Joan Ryan), an hon. Lady—one of us blessed tonsorially and the other cursed—I understand how such things can be confusing.
However, to turn to the point raised by the hon. Member for Surrey Heath, we have heard an enormous, almost inordinate, amount about the internal mechanisms of the London boroughs of Wandsworth and of Hammersmith and Fulham. In many ways the hon. Gentleman made the Government’s case, because if one thing has flowed through every aspect of our discussions, as wide and massive as Old Father Thames, it is the link between executive and strategic functions. It was brought out in the hon. Gentleman’s speech. I was born in the London borough of Hammersmith and brought up in the borough of Fulham. I am not sure which political party was in control during my boyhood, but as I lived in Margaret Bonfield house, next to Chuter Ede house and round the corner from Hartley Shawcross house, over the road from Harold Wilson house on an estate that was, and still is, called the Clem Attlee estate, it is entirely possible that there was a Labour administration.
The points made by the hon. Member for Surrey Heath illustrate the subtlety of the approach of my ministerial colleagues, although I do not wish to insult them by accusing them of subtlety. London is a city like no other—a city of mosaics in which individual communities live side-by-side with other communities of a totally different economic or demographic type. There must be a balance between the understandable desire for local influence over housing, if not quite autonomy, and the London-wide strategic overview. One thing that has not yet been mentioned is the Bill’s proposal that the Mayor consult not only within the area covered by the Greater London authority but in the surrounding areas. That shows a recognition that housing cannot be approached in isolation. We can look even beyond that: any outer London Member—there are a few of us in the room—knows that often when we talk about housing issues people from Hertfordshire, Oxfordshire or Buckinghamshire ask for their input to be heard. The Bill allows for that.
Above all, housing cannot be a hermetically sealed issue, considered entirely locally. There must be a balance. I speak as one who was proud to wear not the civic chain, as we did not have one, but the civic title of chair of housing management in the London borough of Ealing, where I attempted to bring back standardised paint on front doors and standards for garden cleansing. I was known as the Stalin of W7, but I always denied that.
  Mr. Hands rose—

Stephen Pound: I happily give way to the man who represents the borough of my birth.

Greg Hands: It is a pleasure both to represent the borough of the hon. Gentleman’s birth and upbringing and to support the same football team. He seems to hold strongly the conviction that housing should be a matter for the Mayor on a strategic, London-wide basis. Looking through the debates on the GLA Bill, I can find no record of his having expressed that view in 1999 or 2000. What has happened in the intervening six or seven years?

Stephen Pound: I do not study my words with quite as much assiduity as does the hon. Gentleman. However, I seem to recall in November 1997 making a speech—

Greg Hands: Your maiden speech.

Stephen Pound: Indeed, my maiden speech. The first and last decent speech I ever made on the Floor of the House, many would say. I spoke on the Greater London Authority Bill and for my sins I was then put on the Committee of it. I made precisely that point, referring to the glittering kaleidoscope of agencies delivering services across London, which I said
“does not delight the eye, but benumbs the brain”.—[Official Report, 10 November 1997; Vol. 300, c. 609.]
I seem to remember waxing lyrical about the traffic signals control unit, which means something to those of us who were involved in local government in the ’70s and ’80s, but happily not nowadays.
Like most people, I have considered the evolution of the London mayoralty. We are used to Mayors in London—we have even had a couple of Lord Mayors—but we are still not used to the idea of a strategic Mayor combined with an executive assembly. We have watched the mayoralty evolve. We are here today because of the evolution of the role of Mayor and the need, in many matters, to change it where circumstances have changed. Clause 28(3) exempts the Mayor from requirements established in section 41(9) of the 1999 Act, in which targets were set within the London housing strategy—the suggestion is that they are not less demanding than targets and objectives set nationally. That change has come about because of a recognition of the sub-regional housing supply situation, and the need to ensure some level of national conformity and—to risk re-introducing the debate on floors and ceilings—to set a floor.

Greg Hands: Does the hon. Gentleman not agree that probably the most significant change since that time is that during debate on the 1999 Act, the Labour party controlled 18 of the 32 London boroughs—more than half—and now controls only eight of them? That explains fully the political reasons why the Government are seeking to transfer those powers from the boroughs to the Mayor.

Stephen Pound: This party cares for the people, not their political allegiance. This party speaks for all London and all Londoners. We care not where they cast their vote or what colour rosette they happen to wear when it comes to considering matters of moment for the whole city. We would never, ever be so politically partisan as to cast legislation in line with some party political prejudice. The Labour party is bigger than that. We look at this capital city, this great city—a city greater even than Lichfield—in terms of the needs of all its citizens. If the hon. Gentleman is seriously implying for a moment that we would ever consider partisan political advantage, he does us ill and he knows little of this party.
Returning—

Edward O'Hara: Order. I am heartened by the word “returning”.

Stephen Pound: The late and much lamented right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst, Eric Forth, once spoke for three and a quarter hours on the placement of a comma. Every time the Speaker looked as though he might rise to ask him to desist, he pointed to the Order Paper and said “and returning”. Like most of us, I heard much from him.
My point is that we have here a classic example of the dichotomy between the Mayor’s executive and strategic functions. Whereas the hon. Member for Surrey Heath seems to want to have his cake and eat it in allowing local autonomy within a benign strategic city-wide framework, that is simply not possible in reality. I shall mention a couple of things that he did not talk about. Housing is not just about housing. It is about climate change, energy conservation, transportation, employment and life chances. Housing is, in fact, about everything. If we are talking about housing in any city, and in this city above all, we must bear in mind all those other factors.
As we all know, housing is the single most important determinant of a person’s happiness or sadness in life. If we are ill, we go home until we feel better. If we lose our job, we go home and write applications for a new one. If we lose our home, we have lost everything and we are on the street. There are 101 reasons why that home can be unsatisfactory—the condition of the property, the journey to work, the amount of pollution, the noise or vibration or any other issue.
For that reason, I am utterly convinced that the Government are trying to keep as much local autonomy as possible so that local authorities can determine planning applications to their hearts’ content. They can set their unitary development plans, work within them and raise individual cases, but they cannot do so in isolation, not just from the rest of London but from adjoining boroughs and even, as we have seen, from boroughs abutting the GLA area. It is simply impossible to deal with the problem in that way.
The hon. Member for Surrey Heath made such a persuasive intellectual case that I found myself swept away by the majesty and power of his words.

Martin Linton: I was not.

Stephen Pound: My hon. Friend has known him longer than I have. I was greatly impressed and was casting around in my mind for any way in which that fortunate juxtaposition could be arrived at whereby we could have both city-wide strategic direction and complete local autonomy. I cannot see how that can be done, but I can see how we could get as close to it as possible, and that is through the Bill, which represents the best possible balance, allowing those two powers to coexist.
Finally—your favourite word, Mr. O’Hara—

Edward O'Hara: I am further encouraged.

Stephen Pound: Finally, the Housing Corporation was mentioned earlier. The London Housing Federation and the Housing Corporation are vital bodies. The Housing Corporation supports the proposals, despite what the hon. Member for Surrey Heath implied. Before I was elected, when I had an honest job, I worked for Paddington Churches housing association. I was constantly frustrated by the inability to deal with housing beyond the purely parochial, because housing throughout London affects people. People in London move across the city. We are a mobile city and we must recognise that city-wide mobility. We have on these green pages possibly not legislative perfection—we do not achieve that very often in this place—but a blueprint for a better city, in which we manage to achieve that balance that we all seek, for all Londoners. On that basis, I oppose the amendment and support the position of the Government.

Greg Hands: I welcome you to your position, Mr. O’Hara. I, too, am enjoying serving under your chairmanship of the Committee. It is always difficult to follow the hon. Member for Ealing, North, not least because he invariably manages to mention my constituency many times. Indeed, it is possibly the most mentioned constituency in this debate so far.
Looking at the Labour Benches, I was a little intrigued by the membership of the Committee in the first place. I found a somewhat unlikely source of guidance for how it came about earlier this week, when I was forwarded the Christmas message from the hon. Member for Ealing, Acton and Shepherd's Bush, which explains how Labour members of the Committee get appointed. In the hon. Gentleman’s Christmas message—curiously, written at midnight on a Saturday just before Christmas—he said:
“Secretly, I would prefer to speak on matters about which I know nothing at all but are a bit more fun (like Statistics or Estate Agents—yes, there are Bills on both subjects, and it’s my idea of fun, not yours). As is customary, the whips took my speaking on the Second Reading of the Greater London Authority Bill as evidence of enthusiasm and have put me on the Standing Committee for the Bill, which meets in January. This means many hours trawling through every clause of the Bill line by line with the purported intention of testing and improving it.”
I shall return to the matter of improving it shortly. He goes on:
“I’m rather looking forward to it”—

Edward O'Hara: Order. This is very entertaining, but in the interests of sparing both the patience of the Chairman and the Committee, and the embarrassment of the hon. Member for Ealing, Acton and Shepherd's Bush, the hon. Gentleman should move on to his substantive point.

Greg Hands: Thank you for your guidance, Mr. O’Hara. The hon. Gentleman’s message ends by saying that his previously empty head is now filled with opinions on every conceivable subject, and the Bill certainly seems to be one of them.

Andrew Slaughter: I thank the hon. Gentleman for the promotional talk from my regular newsletter to my constituents. If anyone wishes, they can go to my website, www.andyslaughter.com, and sign up for that service as well.

Greg Hands: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. If I were him, I would check out the person whose e-mail address is snuggleskunk@gmail.com. He will probably find that they are not one of his supporters.
My point is this: I checked out the voting record of the hon. Member for Ealing, Acton and Shepherd’s Bush. It is incredible and one of the strongest in the House. He appears in something like 95 per cent. of Divisions. Every single time he has voted in accordance with the Government. He has never rebelled. I thought back to the Second Reading of this Bill: the hon. Gentleman said that all the people who spoke in that debate seemed to have been appointed to this Committee. I looked around for people like the hon. Members for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey), for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell), for Islington, North (Jeremy Corbyn) and for Leyton and Wanstead (Harry Cohen) and was left wondering why they were not put on the Committee at the same time.

Jim Fitzpatrick: May I just point out to the hon. Gentleman that the nomination to Standing Committees is in the hands of the Committee of Selection? I hope he is not impugning its integrity because it has the power.

Edward O'Hara: Order. It is certainly not the business of this Committee nor of the Chair.

Greg Hands: Thank you, Mr. O’Hara. I just find it a remarkable coincidence. It is tough to find loyalists in the London Labour party these days. Remarkably, they are all on this Committee.
Turning to the main provisions before us, the provisions we seek to delete or amend are significant. They will fundamentally alter the balance in London between the Mayor and the boroughs. We were told two things about the original GLA Act and the Bill before us today. We were assured that the Mayor of London has a strategic role in the management of London and secondly that the measures proposed in 1999 and again today would be devolutionary with powers coming from central Government and given to the Mayor. On both those grounds these proposals for housing powers fail the Government’s very own objectives.
The role proposed here for the Mayor of London is far more than a strategic role, but will involve the Mayor and his office and officers in very localised matters. I will provide some illustrations in due course. These powers come almost entirely from the boroughs and boroughs will no longer have much say in their local housing strategies and will apparently be at the mercy of the Mayor in seeing their funding determined. For example, under new section 333A(3)(c) the Major will recommend to the Secretary of State
“how much of the money allocated by him during the relevant period for housing in Greater London should be granted to each local housing authority in Greater London.”
Subsection (4)(b) refers to
“recommendations as to the number, type and location of houses which should be provided by means of grant.”
It is tempting to believe that those who were drawing up this Bill genuinely had in mind that there would be a strategic role for the Mayor. I can understand there being a strategic role for the Mayor. All Opposition Members can. It might be in terms of determining the overall needs of the private rented sector, home ownership, how much should be given to social rented across London and so on. I supposed that that was the Government’s intention. But the reality in the Bill is fundamentally different. The reality is that the Mayor already tries to get involved in the smallest schemes such as the Allied Carpets site in Hammersmith and Fulham. It is directly on the boundary between my constituency and that of the hon. Member for Ealing, Acton and Shepherd’s Bush.

Andrew Slaughter: Can we be clear? It may be on the boundary, but it is in my constituency and I spoke about it at some length on Second Reading. Indeed, I was very pleased when we had a victory. I took part in the photocall. It is just a pity that when the Conservative council printed the photograph they cut me out of it.

Greg Hands: I was trying to use that local example to demonstrate a wider point. It seems that the hon. Gentleman still cannot move on from his days as leader of Hammersmith and Fulham council. I have been advising him for some time that it is time to move on. I believe that even his own colleagues have been telling him that. If he really wants to go back to Hammersmith and Fulham council he would have great difficulty because his old seat is now held by the Conservatives with a 427 majority.
I mentioned the Allied Carpets site not because it is in Hammersmith and Fulham, but because the scheme was turned down by the Conservative council and was refused on appeal, but Mayor Livingstone then recommended it for approval. He said:
“This was an excellent scheme by Allied and Morrison, with a ground floor car showroom and a part 4 storey, part 10 storey building with 50 residential units (50 per cent. affordable) that delivered many London Plan policies.”
That sounds interesting, but the scheme had only 50 units and the Mayor was giving a view about the percentage content of a tiny development of 50 units. We were told that we would be talking about the Mayor’s strategic powers, but a car showroom in Hammersmith and Fulham with 50 units is hardly strategic.
 The charter that the provision gives to the Mayor or his successors to meddle in the 32 boroughs of London is immense, and we have seen how the Mayor meddles. My hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath mentioned another site that I shall use as an example. I am not fixated about my local area, but the scheme at the Prestolite site is a good example. The Mayor, using his existing powers, rejected the scheme in a press release issued on Boxing day. If the Mayor wanted to co-operate with London borough councils, would he issue a press release on Boxing day and prevent the council from having a right of reply, despite the fact that 65 per cent. of the scheme consisted of affordable housing? His own officers recommended it and said that
“on balance, the application will deliver substantial numbers of affordable homes, significantly above the overall strategic targets for boroughs”
in London. The Mayor is supposedly in favour of more affordable housing, but his reason for rejecting a scheme consisting of 65 per cent. affordable housing was:
“Hammersmith’s actions have the stench of Shirley Porter’s regime at Westminster Council in the 1980s.”
We have many new, young councillors in Hammersmith and Fulham, many of whom are under 35. I am above the median age of the current councillors. Most of them had never heard of Dame Shirley Porter.

Andrew Pelling: They should learn about her in schools.

Greg Hands: Unfortunately, the schools in Hammersmith and Fulham were Labour-controlled for the past 20 years and it was difficult to learn much in them.
At the following group meeting, the councillors were passing round a book condemning Dame Shirley Porter to find out who she was, which shows how far out of touch the Mayor of London is with London housing.
Subsection (4)(b) states that the recommendations may include
“the number, type and location of houses which should be provided by means of grant.”
That sounds like an incredible charter for meddling in every small development. I suspect that the Mayor will be able to influence the number and type of homes, their location and pretty much everything, not in developments of 50 homes, but in much smaller ones. In addition, he will need staff to assist him. There will not be one individual poring over a set of planning applications; there will be yet further growth in the size of the bureaucracy supporting the Mayor and the GLA. I fear that the Ministers behind that will be responsible for causing a nightmare for London.
The power grab from the boroughs on housing is a purely political move for two reasons. First, the Mayor asked for the powers as a payback for his support for the Labour party during its last difficult three or four years. Secondly, at the time of the 1999 Act, Labour controlled 18 of the 32 boroughs and the Labour boroughs did not like the idea of the present Mayor, or any other Mayor, taking their powers. It is purely because of the change in the political complexion of London that the Government have decided to rerun the borough council election results from this year. That is no way to run a democracy and it does not inspire trust in the Mayor and the boroughs.
Furthermore, I foresee a number of legal rows between London councils—the individual boroughs—and the Mayor about all the various developments in which he will start meddling. The worst thing about those legal rows is that the people will have to foot the bill, because both sides will in effect be funded by the long-suffering London council tax payer. The London council tax payer pays both for the boroughs and for the Mayor and the Greater London authority. I foresee many rows not only with Conservative councils but with Liberal Democrat councils and probably even Labour councils. Probably the only exception would be any council controlled by the Respect party, which seems to be just about the only party that is closely aligned with the Mayor’s foreign policy views these days. One disadvantage of the GLA structure is that the funding of the Mayor is not very transparent. I believe that council tax payers will suffer.
I want to end with some thoughts about whether the proposals are devolutionary. That is the other plank of the proposals: first, they should be strategic, and secondly devolutionary. As my hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath mentioned, most if not all of the powers are coming up from the boroughs. The London boroughs—I served as a councillor for eight years on a borough in London—not only are much closer to their residents but have a stronger electoral mandate than the Mayor. Councillors are elected on higher turnouts and are not elected with second preference votes.
In turn, the Mayor’s strategy also has to agree with national housing strategies, according to the Bill. Amendment No. 20 would change that. It would remove the need for the Mayor’s strategy to agree with national policy and end the Government’s attempted nationalisation of London’s housing policy. The proposals are not just about moving powers away from the boroughs up to the Mayor but about moving them up further, to the Secretary of State. That is a bizarre result, given that the Bill has been lauded on the other side of the Committee as devolutionary.
To quote again from the Bill, local housing strategies will need to be “in general conformity” with the Mayor’s strategy, which must in turn not be “inconsistent” with current national policies relating to housing. How much individual choice will be left for boroughs in London at all? The position of housing policy is being transformed: it is being moved from democratically elected local councillors all the way up the chain of command to the Secretary of State. In a Bill said to reinforce the Mayor’s strategic powers, powers are given on an incredibly localised basis, on the location, funding and tenure balance of small individual housing schemes. We have seen in Hammersmith and Fulham that he wants to intervene even on schemes of 50 units. He is already trying that, even before he gets the powers. He even gets involved in the percentage balance of a development of 50 units. That is not strategic.
I support the amendments and urge us to return to the principles that we should have devolution in London and that the powers of the Mayor should remain strategic. The new housing powers achieve neither, and I believe that the Government will come to regret that in future years if the proposals become law.

Andrew Slaughter: I am afraid I thought that some of the hon. Gentleman’s comments were a little inappropriate. If anyone is obsessed with Hammersmith and Fulham council, it appears to be him rather than me. My only interest is that it is a truly dreadful council. My advice to the hon. Member for Surrey Heath is not to act as a frontman for it in his contributions, first because it is about as far away from the position that he tries to express on the Conservative Front Bench as it is possible to get, and secondly because the information that he is being given is simply incorrect. However, before I correct those points, let me explain that most of what I am going to say I shall go over only in outline, because much of it is more appropriate to the debate on the planning provisions of the Bill than it is to the housing provisions. Perhaps I shall make a longer contribution when we reach that point.
A number of things have been said that cannot be allowed to rest and need to be corrected. Before I go on to the housing matters, I must say that I take exception to the comment by the hon. Member for Hammersmith and Fulham about the education service in Hammersmith and Fulham. The front page of the education supplement with today’s edition of The Guardian has a picture of Phoenix high school in my constituency, which is the most improved secondary school in the country under the visionary leadership of William Atkinson and because of contributions over 10 years from a Labour Government and a Labour council investing in what was a failing school. The comments that the hon. Gentleman makes are exactly the same comments that he and his colleagues made when that school was failing. They were running it down, running off to the Tory press to deprecate it and trying to get it closed by default. Despite that, Phoenix high school is a fantastic success story—the most improved school in England.
To my horror, I find that now that those people are in control of Hammersmith and Fulham council they are doing the same to Hurlingham and Chelsea school—the only other mixed-community school in the borough—except now they have the power to close it. That is a truly disgraceful record and I am sorry that the hon. Member for Hammersmith and Fulham made such a flippant comment about the standard of education in the borough, which overall is excellent. In fact, many of his constituents go to those schools.
On housing matters, I said that I thought that the hon. Member for Surrey Heath had been misled. I do not want to go over the details, except to say that some of the developments that he talked about exemplify what is going wrong in many boroughs—Hammersmith and Fulham is an extreme example. I am surprised that he is associating the Conservative Front Bench with that. If nothing else, the situation provides a good reason for a strategic direction in housing powers in London because the problems are simply not being addressed. Indeed, they are being worsened by the attitudes, principally but not exclusively of Conservative councils—the disgraceful housing authority in the London borough of Islington is controlled by the Liberal Democrats.
In brief, when the Labour party was in control of Hammersmith and Fulham council, 70 per cent. of all housing units being constructed were affordable homes. The split was roughly: 50 per cent. shared ownership and 50 per cent. social rented housing. That met and in fact exceeded the Mayor’s 50 per cent. target for affordable housing, although the target for social rented housing was 70 per cent. and for shared ownership, 30 per cent. The second part of the target appeared not to have been met, but in fact it was, given that the overall percentage of affordable housing was 70 per cent. We were building as many rented houses as we could and more shared ownership ones than was required. So that lays one ghost to rest—the Labour party has no prejudice or bias against shared ownership housing. Indeed, many of the policies of the Government and the Minister for Housing and Planning, such as the social homebuy scheme, have promoted low-cost home ownership.

Michael Gove: Will the hon. Gentleman remind the Committee exactly how many homes have been sold under the social homebuy scheme?

Andrew Slaughter: I just said that it was an admirable policy. If the hon. Gentleman wants that justification, he should go to the Front Bench rather than me. I shall come on to his comments in a moment. He might want to intervene then rather than continue the rather sterile debate that I often see him have with my hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Planning.
I have highlighted the position under the Labour administration, which had the best housing record in London. It still was not achieving the target of ensuring that 70 per cent. of affordable homes were social rented, although it pushed closer to it every year. However, land values in that borough are very high—some of the highest property prices in London and the country. I take no credit for it, but that was a good record. The policy and practice of the Conservative administration has been to drive down that percentage of affordable homes as close as possible to the Mayor’s 50 per cent.
More significantly, the administration is reversing the percentages of social rented and shared ownership housing. It wants 70 per cent. of all social housing built to be shared ownership. It does that cynically. The generally accepted Housing Corporation and housing association equation is that shared ownership housing costs about two thirds of its market value. Those homes with about a 45 or 50 per cent. discount will retail for between £200,000 and £400,000. The administration knows, therefore, that given land values in Hammersmith and Fulham, most of those properties will not be available to those with housing needs. They are not even available to those whose income is two or three times the average. They represent an important intermediate market but do not address the primary area of housing need, which is why I think that the Mayor’s 70:30 housing formula is the right one. Given the cost of private sector ownership and rental in Hammersmith and Fulham, or any part of north-west London, no one can say that there is not a housing shortage. The figures speak for themselves. Most boroughs in west London have 10,000 or more people on the waiting list and 2,000 or more families in temporary accommodation. Every one of those families is costing the taxpayer a fortune—usually—through housing benefit costs, or they are paying those costs themselves.

Michael Gove: The hon. Gentleman knows that the Government are committed to halving the number of individuals living in temporary accommodation. Will he remind us of the number of people living in temporary accommodation when the Government came to power?

Andrew Slaughter: I remind the hon. Gentleman ofthis: the Government’s initiatives on temporary accommodation, particularly on ending the use of bed and breakfast accommodation, have changed fundamentally the conditions in which people live. I remind him also that because of the prosperous economy, particularly in west London, house prices and rental values have gone up so much that the squeeze on people who cannot afford to rent or buy in the private sector is such that in recent years there has been an increase in the number of people in temporary accommodation. The Government have now pledged to address the problem.
Why does the hon. Gentleman support Conservative councils that are going out of their way to thwart the Housing Corporation, the Government office for London and the Mayor’s attempts to achieve those targets and extract people from temporary accommodation?

Michael Gove: As the hon. Gentleman’s response implicitly acknowledged, the number of people in temporary accommodation then was half the number now, so the Government’s target for solving the temporary accommodation problem will return us only to the position that they inherited when they came to power. As he knows, it is a problem not only London-wide, but throughout the UK and in the east of England in particular.

Andrew Slaughter: I understand why the hon. Gentleman does not want to answer my question. I am sure that he does not want to take advice from me, but I advise him again to dissociate himself from events in Hammersmith and Fulham. “Porterite” is exactly the right word, because Porterite means unacceptable political influence in planning and housing processes. It also means incompetent interference, because unless one is incompetent one does not get found out.
The hon. Gentleman may want to find out more about the Prestolite scheme before he discusses it again in Committee. It was inherited from a Labour council and it included 75 per cent. affordable housing. The new Conservative council made two demands of it: first, that it decreased the percentage of affordable housing from 75 per cent. to 64 per cent.; and secondly, that it swapped the allocations of rented and shared ownership housing, so that instead of the scheme consisting of predominantly rented housing, it consisted of predominantly shared ownership housing for the reasons that I have given. It was cynical political interference, and I hope that he does not approve of it. 
 The hon. Gentleman mentioned Imperial Wharf. Not a day goes by when I do not receive an e-mail or a telephone call from a housing association operating in Hammersmith and Fulham, telling me that it has had unreasonable demands placed on it. I shall provide one more example: a 100 per cent. affordable-housing-designated site, Bagleys Lane in the Imperial Wharf area, which included 121 units of affordable housing. The first demand was for one-third market housing on the site; the second demand was for only 15 per cent. social rented housing on the site.
Given what the hon. Gentleman has said about housing need, particularly in London, I do not understand how he can defend a Conservative council that believes it is right to designate 15 per cent. affordable housing on a site that was designated for 100 per cent. affordable housing. He should put those questions to his hon. Friends rather putting questions to me.
I have more sympathy with the hon. Member for Hammersmith and Fulham on the Allied Carpets site issue, save that it was an observation in a report which the Mayor did not pursue. He did not attend the public inquiry, because it was an inappropriate development, I am pleased to say, not because of the housing split on the site. The project was for a tall tower in a residential area, but it was rejected, which shows the robustness of the planning process. The example is a red herring in this context.
 It is essential that in terms of housing policy in London, we build the homes that people need. The Conservative boroughs have not merely failed to deliver on that, and they have not merely derogated responsibility; they have actively and callously gone out of their way to make it clear to people in housing need that they are not welcome in Conservative boroughs. I am surprised to find that the hon. Gentleman is prepared to support that policy, as he indicated on Second Reading, rather than that advocated by the Mayor.

Andrew Pelling: I have been inspired by some comments made by hon. Members and I want to respond to them. First, my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith and Fulham does well to mention the significant change in the party political balance across London. I am sure that the Government would not want to be accused of returning to a cynical approach of trying to abolish the role of one layer of government to take revenge for political success at the ballot box, as previous Administrations of another colour have perhaps been able to do in the past.
I was grateful to the hon. Member for Ealing, North for mentioning Mrs. Thoroughgood. I am sure that she will be pleased to see her name in Hansard. My predecessor made the great mistake of criticising the quality of the bananas in Surrey Street market, which was probably why he ended up losing.

Stephen Pound: Slipping on banana skins.

Andrew Pelling: Indeed, it is amazing what one does during elections. However, I want to be serious in this debate, because there is a housing crisis in London and it is important that the legislation is effective and meets the needs of the 62,000 people who are homeless and the 360,000 people in overcrowded accommodation in London.
It is important for us to debate the efficacy of setting centrally driven targets for housing, whether nationally or regionally. The current system, particularly in London, has created a distortion in the supply of one and two-bedroom flats, when what is really needed is the provision of family housing, particularly houses with gardens. I do not believe that being opposed to back-garden development is an appropriate policy in Greater London. Such is the stress on housing in London that that is one place from which housing has to come.
Behind people’s concerns in this debate is a lack of confidence in the ability of local authorities to deliver on municipal and social housing. That is not my experience with my local authority in Croydon. I pay credit particularly to Councillor Dudley Mead, who led on housing before 1994 and who leads on it now. I am pleased that funds have come from the Government via the GLA for new council housing in Croydon. That is important, when my constituents face extreme overcrowding and are advised that their prospects for new social housing will see them re-housed in nine to 10 years.
There are significant votes in providing extra social and council housing in Greater London, but it is people locally who will be strongest in responding to that need and demand. It is more than likely that the initiative taken by a local authority will be blunted by the need to visit city hall and argue its case for one allocation or another. It would be much better if this issue were driven upwards, rather than downwards. That is the problem with the philosophy and approach behind all the amendments. Our approach has been about taking power downwards from the Government and the Government office for London and for giving the GLA responsibilities for the NHS in London and the learning and skills councils in London. Housing being built in localities in response to local pressures is best delivered by local authorities themselves.

Yvette Cooper: I shall respond to the points made on the amendments this afternoon. I found the amendments confusing and contradictory in their nature. Amendments Nos. 20 and 21 and a bit of amendment No. 19 would reduce the influence of the Secretary of State in relation to the Mayor. Amendment No. 22 would reduce the influence of the Mayor in relation to the boroughs. However, amendment No. 19 would substantially reduce the influence of the Mayor in relation to the Secretary of State and the Housing Corporation. The overall impact of the amendments is not devolutionary, as the Opposition have suggested, but centralising; they would hand power and decision making back to the Secretary of State.

Michael Gove: Amendment No. 66 makes explicit the devolutionary intent. I apologise to the Chair and to the Committee for the tardy way in which the amendment was tabled, which means that it is not being debated at the moment. If, however, the Minister’s intention is to ensure that the whole spread of the Bill is as devolutionary as possible, then we would be delighted if she accepted that on Report.

Yvette Cooper: I apologise to the Committee for not reading the hon. Gentleman’s mind and realising that there was another amendment somewhere that would square the circle. Nevertheless, his arguments were not devolutionary. They were all about returning power to the Secretary of State and to the Housing Corporation. Regardless of what other amendments he wants to table, there are fundamental contradictions in the position of the Opposition.

Greg Hands: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Yvette Cooper: Yes, I will, but I would then like to make some progress before giving way further.

Greg Hands: I thank the Minister for giving way. Will she explain why she thinks that the original Bill enshrines the principle of devolution? The local housing strategies, the boroughs, have to be “in general conformity” with the Mayor’s strategy, which, in turn, must
“not be inconsistent with current national policies relating to housing”.
It is therefore impossible to escape the impression that she is effectively dictating policy that goes all the way down to the boroughs.

Yvette Cooper: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that we currently have national housing policies—set out in statute or in guidance—which boroughs need to follow, just like local councils across the country. They have immense free rein in other areas of housing policy.
There is an existing structure in housing policy and in the role of the regional housing boards, which were set up by the Government so that recommendations were made at the regional level rather than simply by civil servants in Whitehall. We thought that an important devolutionary measure. However, we now think it important to democratise that regional voice in London and to give that voice to the Mayor. We think it important to recognise the important strategic issues that reflect the nature of the housing market as a whole, rather than simply local areas and the bricks and mortar that are put up.

Greg Hands: I think that the Minister has already answered my point about how this is different to the status quo. She may correct me if I am wrong, but she is effectively arguing that this enhances the power of the Mayor, but at the expense of herself.

Yvette Cooper: In many ways the Bill does exactly that. The effect of the Opposition amendments, particularly amendment No. 19, would be to reverse that and simply put a lot of the spending decisions back in the hands of the Secretary of State.
We have to recognise the way that decisions are taken at the moment. The Housing Corporation receives bids for affordable housing. We also have to make decisions about how resources allocated for housing in London are to be carved up between boroughs, perhaps to address problems of the supply of decent homes, of overcrowding or of empty or temporary accommodation. Those are the different ways in which the Government support investment in housing in different areas across London.
Decisions are currently made either by the Secretary of State directly or by the Housing Corporation on the Secretary of State’s behalf. Currently, decisions are made subject to the Secretary of State receiving recommendations from the regional housing board. The boards are composed on the direction of the Secretary of the State, not by decision of the Mayor, and consist of a small number of people whose role is to make recommendations to the Secretary of State. We think that those recommendations about the spending priorities across the city as a whole would be far better coming from the democratically elected Mayor who represents the city as a whole. He should be making recommendations about strategic priorities for London as a whole.
Frankly, if recommendations are not made about money and the strategy does not have an impact on resources, it will not have half the impact on the city as a whole. Over two years, £1.5 billion will go into new affordable housing for London through the Housing Corporation. That is almost half the budget for affordable housing for the country as a whole. That is a lot of investment going into the capital, and we think that it is right that the democratically elected Mayor of London should have a say and make recommendations about the priorities for that investment. If we simply remove the Mayor’s spending recommendations from the process, we will be back to where we started, with the decisions being made by the Secretary of State and the Housing Corporation instead. It is about having a devolutionary effect.

Andrew Slaughter: My hon. Friend may not have plumbed the depths of the Opposition, who do not actually want the investment. I mentioned some schemes earlier: on the Prestolite scheme, £30 million of public funding was withdrawn because of the Conservative council’s decision, and on the Bagley’s lane scheme, £6 million was withdrawn. The Opposition do not want investment in housing, in the same way as they did they want the decent homes money for houses in Fulham.

Yvette Cooper: My hon. Friend may be right, but the Opposition’s amendments may reflect disagreement about particular housing policy issues between individual Conservative London boroughs and the Mayor rather than a rational argument about structure.
There is a second contradiction in the Opposition Members’ approach. Amendment No. 20 is about removing the role of the Secretary of State with regard to the London housing strategy. However, Opposition Members have asked for decision making to go back to the Secretary of State and for safeguards to prevent the Mayor from being capricious and from favouring one London borough over another. The hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington has asked for safeguards to ensure that the resources and spending allocations reflect the statutory obligations of London boroughs, which is important.
It is also important that the way in which the resources are allocated reflects the obligations set out under national policy. We have retained a role for the Secretary of State in order to ensure that the London housing strategy conforms to national housing policy, which includes those statutory obligations. A list of safeguards has been included, and we have limited the Secretary of State’s role in these clauses. That constraint is in place to ensure that the London boroughs are not asked to do something by the Secretary of State and the statutory framework, when the framework for delivering resources through the Mayor and the Housing Corporation does not reflect those obligations.

Michael Gove: The Minister is labouring under a misapprehension, and is therefore tilting at an Aunt Sally. In our remarks, my hon. Friends and I did not want the powers, particularly the powers of allocation of funding, to remain with the Secretary of State. As amendment No. 66 makes clear—it is on the amendment paper, although it has not been selected—we wanted such decisions to be made by London boroughs acting corporately. As the Minister will know, that was an entirely satisfactory way of operating before the advent of regional government.

Yvette Cooper: The hon. Gentleman should consider carefully whether he is asking for London boroughs to decide how resources are distributed between London boroughs. Which London borough should have how much and how should those resources be allocated? It is inevitable that each London borough will argue for resources for its area, which it should be able to do. However, it is also important that the largest London borough does not have the strongest voice and that particular coalitions of London boroughs are not able unfairly to affect resources for another London borough. Ultimately, it is important that a strategic view is taken of the capital as a whole, which is why we have an elected Mayor for the whole of the capital.
The implication of the hon. Gentleman’s remarks is that he would prefer not to have a Mayor at all, and if that applies to housing resources it presumably applies to many other areas, too. The hon. Gentleman considers that decisions should simply be taken as a result of discussions between London boroughs; in fact, strategic decisions must be taken and, in the absence of a Mayor, many of them would have to be taken by the Secretary of State.

Greg Hands: I understand the Minister’s argument, but I ask her to provide some reassurance. She says that decisions on funding would be made by the Mayor, but other aspects of local authority funding are determined by formulae and through transparent processes. There appears to be no protection here from a Mayor who makes decisions randomly and perhaps in a fit of pique.

Yvette Cooper: To clarify the situation, we have made it clear that the clause is about the Mayor’s spending recommendations and recommendations to the Housing Corporation as to how it should exercise its functions. The Housing Corporation will still have to take decisions about individual bids and take account of the fact that, for example, there could be a situation in which, although a particular priority had been set, in practice there were not sufficient good-value-for-money bids put forward within a 12-month period to make it possible to deliver on that priority. The Housing Corporation would have to take that into account and accordingly make adjustments within a year or two years to ensure that its overall programme is to deliver the priorities set and is not compromised because of value-for-money considerations.
 The clause also includes a recommendation to the Secretary of State as to how they should make allocations to the Housing Corporation as opposed to directly to local councils. Not all the money allocated for London as a whole goes on new affordable housing, because some of it goes on other issues such as decent homes. The Mayor should be making recommendations as to what that balance should be.

Martin Linton: Far from tilting at an Aunt Sally or setting up a windmill, may I ask my hon. Friend whether she is convinced, because I am certainly not, that all Conservative boroughs would want affordable housing, if they had a completely free hand? I remind her that for several years Wandsworth asked for 0 per cent., which was only changed when it came to realise that if it failed to ask for affordable housing, it would be forced to do so by the Secretary of State. Eventually, Wandsworth was dragged kicking and screaming to ask for 25 per cent. affordable housing, and now it grudgingly provides 33 per cent. when 50 per cent. is demanded.

Yvette Cooper: My hon. Friend is right. There may be wider underlying fundamental disagreements about policy, which are often the real issues that divide us in politics, and we should not necessarily hide them behind structures.
There may be real disagreements and hostility from Conservative boroughs to levels of affordable housing. At a national level, I know that the hon. Member for Surrey Heath has echoed my concerns that 200,000 new homes a year should be built. However, he also knows that many London boroughs are anxious about the overall level of house building and have rather different views on new affordable housing. The hon. Gentleman was enthusiastic in his endorsement of Wandsworth council, but, like my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Acton and Shepherd’s Bush, I caution him on simply accepting a briefing from an individual council and endorsing it so enthusiastically. The figures that I have from the GLA suggest that in Wandsworth in 2004-05 only 20 per cent. of new homes were affordable housing, and figures from the Housing Corporation suggest that only nine new social rented homes were built in the whole of Wandsworth in 2005-06. I accept that there are limitations on any set of figures and that the figures will count different types of housing in different ways. Nevertheless, I seriously caution the hon. Member for Surrey Heath in being so enthusiastic in his support for Wandsworth.

Greg Hands: Equally, the Minister should be careful about whom she chooses in this debate, because I think that the Mayor of London has got things fundamentally wrong. If one looks at the Prestolite site in Hammersmith and Fulham, which has been much discussed today, the Mayor of London rejected 65 per cent. of the content of the scheme—bear in mind that it seems that the rejected scheme will not be built. There will be no affordable homes at all as it currently stands. The Mayor’s own office said:
“On balance, the application will deliver substantial numbers of affordable homes, significantly above the overall strategic targets for boroughs.”
Why is the Minister endorsing that approach?

Yvette Cooper: The hon. Gentleman’s example, which has been much raised, is perhaps more relevant to the planning powers that we will discuss next week. I think that he knows that Ministers are restricted in the way in which they can comment on individual planning cases, which, for example, may go through the system of appeal.

Andrew Slaughter: The solution to the negotiations between the Mayor and the London borough of Hammersmith and Fulham is quite simple. If Hammersmith and Fulham council agrees to a reasonable tenure split of housing on the site, the scheme can be built tomorrow. It would be being built had, as I think that I have made clear, it not been for unacceptable political intervention not by the Mayor, but by the leader of the council in Hammersmith and Fulham.

Yvette Cooper: My hon. Friend has made important points, subject to the caveat that I cannot comment in detail on individual cases that may still be live within the planning system. At the heart of this is the anxiety among Conservative Members about the Mayor taking a view at all on the overall level of social and affordable housing—and housing in general—needed across the city. Instead, their proposal is that this should be decided, as they put it in amendment No.66, which I have now seen, by negotiation between London boroughs and the Secretary of State. The Secretary of State has a clear role in their amendment and would have to take a strategic view in the absence of the Mayor being able to do so.
We need to recognise that decisions about housing, particularly major decisions about the level of overall affordable or social housing in one borough, have implications for the city as a whole. The way in which the London housing market works reflects the London labour market and the fact that millions of people travel every day from one borough to another from where they live to where they work. Millions of people will move around during the course of their lives to live in one borough and then another and perhaps to move in and out of London altogether.
There are issues that affect London and the London housing market as a whole, and there are issues around the way in which the London housing market works that affect the national housing market and the national economy. That is why it is important to retain a role for the Secretary of State, because if the Mayor and the London boroughs between them decided, for example, substantially to reduce new housing built in London and new affordable housing in London, it would have a substantial effect on the London economy and the housing market of neighbouring regions.
 The way in which the housing market is linked between one region and another is important and has national repercussions. It would be irresponsible of the Secretary of State not to have some role in recognising the implications that go beyond the city, whether it be for the London economy, the wider national economy or the wider housing market. Similarly, decisions in one borough can impact on decisions in another. We know, for example, that if all the Conservative boroughs decided tomorrow to halve the level of new affordable housing in their boroughs, it would have a substantial impact on not only residents of those boroughs but those who are on low incomes or who cannot afford to buy their own homes in neighbouring boroughs.
That is why this is an important matter for the Mayor to take a view on and why a London housing strategy is important. I say to Opposition Members that the sum of affordable housing proposed by the individual London boroughs does not reach the level of housing needed in London as a whole—

Michael Gove: Will the Minister give way?

Yvette Cooper: No, this is my final point. If one simply takes the sum of the affordable housing proposed by the individual London boroughs, one would not reach the level of affordable housing needed by the city as a whole. That is why it is important for someone to take that overall strategic view, not simply to look at the individual boroughs. The whole is more than the sum of its parts. That strategic view should be taken by the Mayor rather than by the Secretary of State.

Michael Gove: Having once again set up an Aunt Sally, the Minister is now drawing a chimera with the illusion that Conservative councils are somehow standing in the way of housing developments. The facts tell a different story. In central London, the two boroughs with the best performance in delivering housing—they are both increasing their delivery and exceeding their targets—are Wandsworth and Westminster. The best-performing borough in north London is Barnet. The worst-performing authorities are Lambeth and Waltham Forest, which are both Labour-controlled.
In my comments I try to refrain from making partisan points. It is a pity that the Minister has not, but as she has put her head in that noose, I am afraid that it is tightening around her neck rather uncomfortably.

Yvette Cooper: The hon. Gentleman should be slightly cautious in quoting housing supply responses by London boroughs, as he will know from the 2005-06 figures that the worst-performing borough was Kensington and Chelsea. He should be rather more cautious about quoting figures on attitudes to housing and affordable housing.
 The hon. Gentleman and I probably share a common support for additional new housing throughout the country. We disagree in that I think that it is also right to support the mechanisms to deliver those additional homes, whereas he would rather simply proclaim his support for them without being quite so enthusiastic about explaining how and where they should be delivered or what should happen if they are not. [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman is right. I forgot; the hon. Member for Surrey Heath did say that he thought that all the homes should instead be built on farmland. However, he was contradicted just a few weeks later by his right hon. Friend the Member for Witney—who I agree has not had quite enough mentions in this Committee—who said that he was strongly against “the metropolitans”, by which I presume he means the hon. Member for Surrey Heath, who wanted farmers to grow only crops of concrete. Although it was in fact a nice turn of phrase that I would normally have attributed to the hon. Member for Surrey Heath, given his enthusiasm for speechwriting and oratory—I always presumed that he would contribute to the speeches of the right hon. Member for Witney—I thought that it was pushing his internal contradictions too far to come up with a phrase criticising himself.
To be fair, the hon. Gentleman has occasionally suggested locations for homes, but he has not been realistic about the mechanisms by which we can ensure that they are delivered in practice, given the restrictions inevitably and rightly placed through the planning system that prevent the market from simply delivering all the homes that we need.

Martin Linton: Do I take it from what the Minister said that the hon. Member for Surrey Heath volunteered his constituency as the site of a new town?

Yvette Cooper: He did not. However, I noticed that in the same article he attacked the Dartford warblers and nightjars that are, to be fair to him, restraining and preventing development in his constituency.
Opposition Members have moved a series of amendments that do not even achieve their own purposes. The Government do not agree with them. We think them to be counter-productive. These are sensible measures to give a stronger strategic voice to the Mayor rather than the Secretary of State on housing issues affecting the capital. Clearly, this is simply about strategic housing issues rather than local housing questions, which must be matters for the borough. We think that the framework and the balance are right, so I urge the Committee to reject the amendments.

Michael Gove: I am sorry that the Minister feels it necessary to reject the amendments, which were intended to fulfil the overall spirit of the Bill as a devolutionary document. When it was introduced by the Secretary of State, that was her stated intention. I am sorry that the Minister feels incapable of accepting them, but given the hour, it is perhaps appropriate that as she has expressed her opinion, we should have an opportunity to cast our votes.

Question put,That the amendment be made:—

The Committee proceeded to a Division.

Yvette Cooper: On a point of order, Mr. O’Hara. Will you clarify whether we are voting on amendment No. 19?

Edward O'Hara: We are voting on Opposition amendment No. 19.

The Committee having divided: Ayes 5, Noes 9.

Question accordingly negatived.

Edward O'Hara: I understand that the hon. Member for Surrey Heath wishes to press amendment No. 20 to a Division.

Michael Gove: Given our failure on amendment No. 19, we appreciate that amendment No. 22, by implication, has fallen. However, we should like to press amendment No. 20 to a Division.

Amendment proposed: No. 20, in page 30, line 24, leave out from beginning to end of line 22 onpage 31.—[Michael Gove.]

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 6, Noes 8.

Question accordingly negatived.

Clause 28 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
 Further consideration adjourned.—[Jonathan Shaw.]

Adjourned accordingly at eight minutes past Five o'clock till Tuesday 16 January at half-past Ten o'clock.